f-;-/.i.

fa'!1,,<+
{: , , ; :r ,j
. . T r r ? .r9L.

COPY
NUMBER

VEHICLE ACCELERKION CHARACTERISTICS

INFLUENCING H I G H W DESIGN

INTERIM REPORT

Prepared for

National Cooperative Highway Research Program

Transportation Research Board
National Research Council

Paul S. Fancher

Transportation Research Institute

The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48 109
UMTRI-83-2 1

MAY 1983
 Acknowledgment

This work was sponsored by the American Association

o f S t a t e Highway and Transportation O f f i c i a l s , i n co-
o p e r a t i o n w i t h the Federal Highway A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,
and was conducted i n the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program which i s administerea by the Trans-
p o r t a t i o n Research Board o f the Nat ional Research
Counc i 1 .

Disclaimer

This copy i s an uncorrected d r a f t as submitted by the

research agency. A deci s i o n concern i ng acceptance by
the Transportat ion Research Board and pub1 i c a t i o n i n
the r e g u l a r NCHRP s e r i e s w i l l n o t be made u n t i l a com-
p l e t e t e c h n i c a l review has been made and discussed
w i t h the researchers. The opinions and conclusions
expressed o r i m p l i e d i n the r e p o r t a r e those o f the
research agency. They are n o t necessari 1 y those o f the
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research Board, the National Academy o f
Sciences, the Federal Highway A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , the Amer-
i can Association of State Highway and Transportat i o n
O f f i c i a l s , o r of the i n d i v i d u a l s t a t e s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n
the National Cooperat i ve Highway Research Program.
 1. R ~ N o . 2. Accessiem No. 3. Roeipint's C ~ o l o q
No.

UMTRI-83-21
4. Title 4Subtitle 5. Report Date

VEHICLE ACCELERATION CHARACTERISTICS Mav 1983

INFLUENCING HIGHWAY DESIGN 6. P r ( o c r i y O r w t r r i m CA

8. P..hn*y O w a # i m R . p n No.
7. Auibds)
Paul S. Fancher UMTRI-83-21
9. P u f o d n s O w i z . H r W- dMhss 10. Wok Unit Ha.

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research I n s t i t u t e
11. Coatrut w Clan? M a
U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan HR 15-8
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 U.S.A. '3. TW of R.w~( and Period Coverod
12. h w i y mooad -* I n t e r i m Report
N a t i o n a l Cooperative Highway Research Program May 1982 May 1983 -
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research Board
N a t i o n a l Research Counci 1 14. %amsuing A~~ w.
Wash' n-c. 70418
IS. *l-s!$Ls

11. AbsMC*
The a c c e l e r a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f c u r r e n t v e h i c l e s (as r e p o r t e d i n
t h e 1 it e r a t u r e ) are compared w i t h those a c c e l e r a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c u r r e n t l y
used i n t h e geometric design o f highways. The s p e c i f i c t o p i c s addressed a r e
( 1 ) c l imbing l a n e c r i t e r i a ; heavy t r u c k s and r e c r e a t i o n a l v e h i c l e s , ( 2 )
a c c e l e r a t i n g t i m e versus d i s t a n c e t r a v e l e d d u r i n g a c c e l e r a t i o n ; passenger
cars and heavy trucks, ( 3 ) l e n g t h o f a c c e l e r a t i o n lanes; passenger cars, and
( 4 ) passing on two-1 ane highways; passenger cars.
The p r e l i m i n a r y f i n d i n g s o f t h i s study i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e highway
design pol i c y as d r a f t e d by AASHTO [ l ] would be improved i f t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n
versus v e l o c i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e design v e h i c l e s were i n c l u d e d i n t h e
design p o l i c y . Nevertheless, t h e proposed requirements f o r c l imbing
lanes a r e found t o be conservative w i t h respect t o t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n capa-
b i l i t i e s o f t h e c u r r e n t heavy t r u c k f l e e t . With regard t o r e c r e a t i o n a l v e h i -
c l e s t h e design p o l i c y i s based on a v e h i c l e o f "average" a c c e l e r a t i o n capa-
b i l i t y r a t h e r than a low c a p a b i l i t y v e h i c l e . P o l i c y matters, r e l a t e d t o t h e
normal a c c e l e r a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f passenger cars as operated on t h e
highway, are shown t o be i n c o n f l i c t w i t h various sources o f i n f o r m a t i o n
a v a i l a b l e i n the l i t e r a t u r e and, t h e r e f o r e , appear t o be s u b j e c t s r e q u i r i n g
further investigation.

17. K q Wuds 18. D i s t i L u t i a St-@

V e h i c l e a c c e l e r a t i o n , c l imbing lanes,
a c c e l e r a t i o n 1anes , a c c e l e r a t i o n
performance
19. S#rity Classif. (el h i s w, m. S.crrity CIusil. (04 M s ).p) 21. No. ol Peg.. 2 2 Price

+
Unclassified Unclassified 88
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES...................
LISTOF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION . .. .
2.0 ACCELERATION .................
2.1 Basic Factors Influencing Acceleration
2.2
Performance ...............
Those Aspects of Geometric Design Policy
Influenced by Acceleration Characteristics
2.3 Characteristics of the Current Vehicle
Fleet Applicable to the Design Policy ..
2.3.1 Heavy Truck Acceleration; Climbing
Lane Criteria . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.2 Heavy Truck Acceleration;
Acceleration Time Versus Distance
Traveled During Acceleration . . .
2.3.3 Passenger Car Acceleration;
Accelerating Time Versus Distance
Traveled During Acceleration . . .
2.3.4 Passenger Car Acceleration: Length
of Acceleration Lanes . . . . . . .
2.3.5 Passenger Cars; Passing on Two-Lane
Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.6 Recreational Vehicles; Hill
Climbing . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.0 ............
SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS
4.0 REFERENCES .................
APPENDIX A: Literature Review: Acceleration
Performance of Heavy Trucks ......
 LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Analysis Factors for a 300 lb/hp Truck .... 20
2. Time Required for Acceleration From 0 to 60
Miles Per Hour for Selected Model Years ...
Miles Per Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Time Required for Acceleration From 45 to 65

4. Minimum Acceleration Lengths for Entrance

Terminals With Flat Grades of 2 Percent or
Less.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .'... . . .
5. Normal Acceleration of Passenger Cars . . . .
6. "Design" Car Accelerations . . . . . . . . . .
7. Initial Maneuvering Characteristics . . . . .
 LIST OF FIGURES
Page
The influence of velocity on acceleration as
determined by power-to-weight ratio. ....
Force balance for sustained speed. .....
Influence of velocity on force components. .
Trend in weight-power ratios from 1949 to
1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Force analysis of a design heavy truck
operating in 7th, 8th, and 9th gear. . . . .
Engine torque and hp characteristics used in
the truck simulation . . . . . . . . . . . .
Level-road-acceleration versus velocity for a
design heavy truck in 9th gear . . . . . . .
Critical lengths of grade for design, assumed
heavy truck of 300 lb/hp . . . . . . . . . .
Information on acceleration from a stop . . .
Comparison of AASHTO and ITE information on
acceleration performance . . . . . . . . . .
Normal and full acceleration rates for a
range of speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relationship between acceleration time and
distance traveled during normal and full
acceleration ................
Normal acceleration from [ 11 plus
superimposed "design" curves at initial
velocities of 0 and 30 mph .........
Comparisons of velocity versus acceleration
characteristics of passenger cars . . . . . .
Acceleration performance of RV's . . . . . .
Critical lengths of grade for design, assumed
recreational vehicles and field test data . .
 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report provides a summary of preliminary findings

concerning the interrelationships between the acceleration
characteristics of highway vehicles and highway design
policies. The report has been prepared by the University of
Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) as a step
towards presenting a discussion on acceleration and
deceleration characteristics to be included in a section or
appendix of the final report for Project 15-8 conducted
under the auspices of the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP).
The main thrust of Project 15-8 addresses stopping
sight distance; and, in that regard, ongoing work is
examining the influences of vehicle deceleration
characteristics on braking distance. The work on braking
distance will provide the foundation for discussing
deceleration characteristics at a later time.
The discussion of acceleration characteristics may be
conveniently separated from a discussion of deceleration
characteristics, because acceleration and deceleration are
achieved using entirely different mechanical devices, namely
the engine and the brakes. Nevertheless, both of these
devices are controlled by drivers, thereby adding elements
of driver skill and "taste" to the performance of the
driver/vehicle system--the system of interest to the highway
engineer. In some situations, the performance of the
driver-vehicle system is limited primarily by vehicle and
highway characteristics, for example, climbing a steep grade
with a heavy truck. In contrast, driver comfort (or taste)
determines driver/vehicle system performance in acceleration
maneuvers that do not challenge the performance limits
imposed by the mechanical properties of vehicle components
or the friction available at the tire-road interface.
Furthermore, traffic conditions influence how a particular
vehicle is operated. Within this discussion of the
acceleration subject, an attempt is made to distinguish
situations in which driver and/or vehicle factors contribute
to the findings presented.
Part of the material presented pertains to vehicle or
component performance. This performance can be predicted
more accurately than the performance of the driver/vehicle
system. Generally representative observations of the
performance of the driver-vehicle system may be difficult to
make and they frequently involve uncertainties that require
statistical evaluation. The approach taken here has been to
apply (1) principles of physics, and ( 2 ) data from component
measurements to predict vehicle performance, Where
possible, these predictions are compared (and sometimes
"calibrated") using the results of full scale vehicle tests
or observations of vehicles in use.
The subjects discussed with respect to acceleration
characteristics are:
(1) the basic physical factors influencing acceleration
performance;
(2) those aspects of the proposed AASHTO (American
Association of State Highway and Transportat ion
Officials) geometric design policy [I] involving
acceleration (propulsion);
( 3 ) comparisons between the numerical values used in
the design policy and numerical values based on the
acceleration characteristics of the current vehicle
fleet, and
(4) suggestions or insights to be considered in
developing new design charts.
 2.0 ACCELERATION

2.1 Basic Factors Influencing Acceleration Performance

The acceleration performance of pneumatic-tired
vehicles depends upon the difference between the power
available from the engine and the power required to overcome
resistance to motion. So called, "natural" sources of
retardation include rolling resistance in the tires,
aerodynamic drag, and rolling resistance or inefficiency in
the driveline e , chassis friction). In addition to
overcoming natural retardation, the engine supplies the
power needed to increase velocity and/or climb hills, that
is, the power needed to increase the the kinetic and/or
potential energy of the vehicle.
The engines employed in highway vehicles may be roughly
considered as nearly constant torque devices when operated
at typical ranges of engine speed. As illustrated in the
following simplified development, an interpretation of the
implications of constant torque (or, an upper bound on
power) is fundamental to understanding the relationship
between vehicle speed and acceleration capability.
To first approximation engine power is the product of
propulsive force and speed, i.e.,

where P, is power
F is propulsive force
P
V is forward velocity
Second, force equals mass times acceleration,

F=MA

where F is force
M is mass
A is acceleration
At the beginning of this development, ignore any natural
retardation and grade influences such that F=F (Natural
P.
retardation and grade influences will be considered later,
after basic notions concerning power to weight ratio have
been presented.) By combining equations ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) with F
P
= F , the following result is obtained:

A = I (P)
V M

As illustrated in Figure 1, equation 3 shows that the

maximum upper bound on acceleration falls off (decreases) in
. -
a manner that is inversely proportional to the forward speed
of a vehicle of a specified mass equipped with an engine
with a given power c'apability.
For a particular vehicle, the power-to-mass ratio
"scalesw the acceleration-to-velocity relationship (see
Figure 1). This power-to-mass scale factor (often referred
to as a horsepower-to-weight ratio) provides a first order
indication of the relative acceleration capabilities of
various highway vehicles.
Clearly, the actual acceleration performance of a
vehicle depends upon its natural retardation. The net
propulsive force, F is opposed by rolling resistance, F r ,
P'
 \ Passenger Car
0.025 hp/ l b
(40 Ib/hp)

\ Typical Heavy Truck

0.004 hp/ lb
(250 Iblhp)

01 1 1 I I I 1

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 S O 6 0 V mph
( I mpha 1.61 Km/h)

Figure 1. The influence of velocity on acceleration as

determined by power-to-weight ratio.
and aerodynamic drag, Fa, in straightline motion on a level
roadway (see Figure 2 . ) .

Figure 2 . Force b a l a n c e f o r s u s t a i n e d speed.

For zero acceleration (the condition for sustaining speed),

the net force on the vehicle is zero, that is,

F =Fa+F, (4)
P
Figure 3 presents curves showing how FpI Fa, and F, vary
with velocity. The point at which the total drag (Fd = Fa +

Fr) equals the net propulsive force, F determines the

P'
maximum sustained speed, V, (see Figure 3).
In Figure 3 natural retardation has been broken down
into 3 components:
(1) Frt, a tire rolling-resistance force that depends
upon vertical load but is independent of velocity
(2) Frc, a chassis friction term that is conventionally
represented as a linear function of velocity, and
( 3 ) Fa, an aerodynamic drag force that depends upon the
velocity squared.
Figure 3. Influence of velocity on force components.
In addition to these components, upgrades produce another
drag force that depends upon vehicle weight but is
independent of velocity. Obviously, the maximum sustained
speed on an upgrade is less than that on a level road;
however, the amount of speed reduction caused by an upgrade
varies (to first order) in a manner that is inversely
proportional to the levels of velocity involved because of
the relationship between propulsive force and velocity.
When the forces are balanced a vehicle sustains speed,
neither accelerating or decelerating, however, when the
forces are unbalanced, the vehicle will accelerate by an
amount depending upon the inertias involved. There are two
types of inertia to consider: ( 1 ) the mass of the vehicle,
and ( 2 ) the rotational inertia of the drive system. In
acceleration analyses, these two types of inertia are often
combined into a single effective mass, me (or an equivalent
weight, We). At highway speeds the contribution of the
rotational inertia to me may be approximately 3 to 4% of the
total; while at low speed the effective mass may be on the
order of 1.5 times the actual mass. Due to the high gear
ratios associated with low gears (that is, high effective
mass), the low speed acceleration capability of a vehicle
may be much less than that implied by the power-to-mass
ratio.
For the purposes of the highway engineer, acceleration
performance is often described through graphs or tables of
velocity versus distance. The velocity versus distance
performance of a vehicle can be derived from acceleration
versus velocity information as follows:'
(a) Use Newton's laws of motion to find acceleration; viz.,

A =
dV - F
dt-m,

where A is acceleration (or deceleration i f A<O)

V is velocity
F is the net force which is a function of
velocity

me is the effective mass

and d/dt represents the time rate of change of a

variable

(b) Solve (5) to obtain velocity as a function of

time, (This can be done theoretically, if F is a simple
function of velocity, or it can be done numerically.)
(c) Since

that is, velocity is the time rate of change of distance, d,

integrate (6) to obtain distance as a function of time.
(d) Using time to find corresponding pairs of speed-distance
points, construct curves of velocity versus distance.
In summary, once the acceleration versus velocity
characteristic of a vehicle has been determined, knowledge
of elementary calculus can be used to obtain velocity and/or
distance information.
 Although the acceleration capability of a vehicle
changes with velocity, first order estimates of acceleration
performance for small speed changes are often made using a
"constant" acceleration analysis. In this type of analysis
an average acceleration is used to approximate the portion
of the acceleration function existing between two speeds.
The equations resulting from this type of analysis are
readily derived from simple integrations with respect to
time. The results are:
(1) with respect to elapsed time, T,

where Vf is the final velocity

vi is the initial velocity
A is a constant level of acceleration (or
deceleration)
(2) with respect to total distance, d

(Equation 9 can be interpreted and derived from a work/

energy balance, i.e.,
mVfL
-- mVi
n
L
Work = Fd = MAd = - - = change i n k i n e t i c e n e r g y . )
2 2
In closing this general discussion two observations aid
in providing a perspective with regard to (a) driver
controlled acceleration performance and (b) braking
performance. First, clearly the constant acceleration
analysis applies to situations in which the driver chooses
to use something less than the acceleration capability of
the vehicle, Provided information on "normalw acceleration
is available, the performance of the driver-vehicle system
can be analyzed per equations (71, (8), and (9). In
particular, the acceleration used from a standing start is
usually chosen by the driver. In this case, the
'

relationship between distance traveled and time elapsed is

given by the following version of (8):
a = 1/2 AT^
where A is the driver's acceleration characteristic for the
type of vehicle involved.
Second, the foundation brake used in motor vehicles is, to
first order, a constant torque (or brake force) device when
a brake line pressure is applied, Hence, a constant
acceleration analysis is often used in estimating braking
performance. A version of 9 ) commonly employed in
estimating stopping distance, is as follows:

where d is the stopping distance

Vi is the initial velocity
D is deceleration (D = -A)
2.2 Those Aspects of Geometric Desiqn Policy
Influenced by Acceleration Characteristics
The 1981 AASHTO Policy draft [ 1 1 has been reviewed to
identify road designer needs for acceleration and
deceleration data. (This work was performed by Prof. D.E.
Cleveland of the Civil Engineering Department at the
University of Michigan [2].) The "standard" applications,
in which acceleration characteristics are used, include (a)
enhancing the uniformity of vehicle operating speeds on
grades, ( b ) determining the length of acceleration lanes for
entrance terminals, (c) providing adequate sight distance
for accelerating across intersections, and (dl providing
adequate sight distance for passing on two-lane highways.
Different types of acceleration data are employed in
these applications. For studying vehicle-operat ing
characteristics on grades, design curves relating (a) speed,
( b ) magnitude of grade, and (c) length of grade are
presented for recreational vehicles and trucks (see Figures
111-26, 111-27A and B, 111-30, and 111-31 from reference
[I]). (The results for significant upgrades apply to
situations in which the vehicles are actually decelerating
because of a lack of power, Nevertheless, we have chosen to
include these cases under the heading of acceleration since
the driver is using the engine in an attempt to increase or,
at least, maintain speed.) The acceleration characteristics
for passenger cars are not required in this application
since cars are believed to have enough power to readily
negotiate grades as steep as 7 or 8 percent (see [I] page
111-96).
With regard to the length of acceleration lanes,
acceleration characteristics for passenger cars are used [ 2 ]
(see Figure 11-13 page 11-17 of reference [ I ] ) . These
characteristics are intended to represent the normal
acceleration performance for a low horsepower passenger car.
In practice this "normalw acceleration characteristic is
more related to driver preferences than to vehicle
capability. Even so, in certain situations, for example, at
tight interchanges with grade separation, heavy trucks may
not be able to accelerate to within 5 mph ( 8 krn/h) of
typical running speeds in a distance determined by normal
passenger car acceleration levels.
In the case of accelerating across an intersection, the
design policy provides information on three design vehicles
(Figure IX-15 page 18-48), a passenger car, a straight
truck, and a tractor-semitrailer vehicle. The information
is given in the form of curves of accelerating time versus
distance traveled for each type of vehicle. Unpublished
data have been used to determine the assumed relationships
for straight trucks and tractor-semitrailers [ I ] .
Finally with regard to passing maneuvers, average
acceleration levels are given for various speed ranges.
(See Table 111-4 page 111-15 [I].) These values of
acceleration are based on observations of traffic and,
apparently, they represent passenger car performance.

2.3 Characteristics of the Current Vehicle Fleet

Applicable to the Design Policy
The characteristics of the vehicle fleet are
continually changing. An emphasis on fuel economy has
brought about lighter and less powerful passenger cars. In
heavy trucks, the trend has been towards heavier vehicles
with more powerful engines. Vehicles now have more
efficient aerodynamic shapes, tires with less rolling
resistance, and more efficient engines and drivelines than
they had 5 to 10 years ago. For trucks these changes in
retardation are approximately equivalent to a 1 % change in
grade 1 3 1 . That is, for heavy trucks, 3% downgrades are now
effectively 4%, and 3% upgrades are now effectively 2% -
clearly an acceleration advantage and, as it has turned out,
a braking problem. The purpose of this section is to
compare the acceleration characteristics of the current
vehicle fleet with those used in the design policy.
2.3.1 Heavy Truck Acceleration; Climbing Lane
Criteria. In this study emphasis has been placed on the
acceleration characteristics of the heavy truck. Early on,
an attempt was made to acquire relevant data from various
manufacturers. Although cooperation was obtained, the
information received did not represent a comprehensive
assessment of the nation's truck-fleet. In order to develop
a uniform method for assessing truck performance, a review
was made of the methods available for predicting the
acceleration performance of heavy trucks. That review is
included in this report (see Appendix A). Based on the
findings of the review, we have concluded that (1) suitable
models of the acceleration performance of trucks are
available, and (2) a large body of pertinent information on
heavy trucks is contained in the 1977 Truck Inventory and
Use (TIU) Survey conducted by the Department of Commerce
Dl.
The draft design policy presents a set of curves
showing a decreasing trend in weight-to-horsepower ratio for
the vehicle fleet from 1949 to 1973. Data from the TIU
survey have been superimposed on the information presented
in the design policy (see Figure 4). The "1977" curve in
Figure 4 was obtained from computerized files of the TIU
information gathered from over 96,000 trucks. The weight
used in the 1977 data is the maximum weight carried during
1977 as reported by the vehicle operator. In this regard
the weight-to-power estimates represent the average of the
performance capability of the fleet in a heavily loaded
condition (that is, the weight-to-power properties of
vehicles when they are operating empty or partially loaded
are not included here). Nevertheless, the 1977 curve falls
well below the other curves, thereby continuing the trend
towards lower weight-to-power ratio (that is, higher power-
to-weight ratio and greater acceleration capability).
With respect to the "300 1b/hpw vehicle used in the
design policy, the results from the TIU survey indicate that
the average loaded truck in the 60 to 80 thousand pound
weight class has an engine with an average horsepower of 282
with an estimated standard deviation of 51 hp. These
figures correspond to an average weight-to-horsepower ratio
of 248 lbs/hp, with a 303 lb/hp vehicle being one standard
 GROSS WEIGHT, thousands of pands
( loo0 lbs=454kp)

Figure 4. Trend in weight-power ratios from 1949 to 1 9 7 7 [ 5 ] .

deviation less powerful than average. Hence, according to
the TIU data, a 300 lb/hp design vehicle might be
characterized as "substantially below average" rather than
as "typical" as qualitatively referred to in the draft
design policy. Nonetheless, one could argue that a 300 lb/
hp vehicle represents a reasonable vehicle to use in
designing highways and establishing the need for climbing
lanes.
The relative importance of the power-to-weight ratio
(the inverse of the weight-to-horsepower ratio) may be
understood by comparing the upper bound on propulsive thrust
to the influences of driveline efficiency, rolling
resistance, and aerodynamic drag on net thrust; for example,
see Figure 5 representing a typical heavy truck similar to
the one analyzed in [ 5 1 and subsequently used to develop
Figure 111-31 page 107 of the draft design policy: In this
case, we have employed retardation (drag) factors that are
derived from (a) our literature review and ( b ) contacts with
manufacturers, Table 1 summarizes the equations,
relationships, and coefficient values employed in this
analysis.
 Gear
Force II ,7\r\
\
77fin
(375)qzFP
lbS/lOO
mox

Upper Bound on
I \ \\ -\ Propulsive Thrust

Propu lsive
Thrust cnd 20.
Net Thrust
IbsfI00

2% Upgrade
-

10.

1% Upgrade
5.

0 1 1 I 1 I I
Veloc~ty
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1 55 60 moh

I t 1

5: +)
I
Fv
Drag
Factors
lbs/IOO
*Sustained Speeds
Grade 'lo mph

.Figure 5. Force analysis of a design heavy truck operating in

7th, 8th, or 9th gear.
 TABLE 1
ANALYSIS FACTORS FOR A 300 lb/hp TRUCK

V (forward velocity) = independent variable, mph

GVW (gross weight) = 78000 lbs
NHP (net engine horsepower) = 260 hp at 0 to 500'
(elevation correction factor, Ce = 1-4 E, where
E = elevation e.g., Ce = 0.6 at 10,000 ft)
(driveline efficiency) = 0.86 for tandem drive axles
(dim'less)
(note: for a single drive axle q = 0.9)
fr (rolling resistance, radial tires) = (GW/1000) (4.1 +

0.041V) Cr
where
Cr is a factor defining the quality of the road surface
Typical values of Cr are 1.0 for a smooth concrete road, 1.2
for worn concrete road or a cold black top road, and 1.5 for
a hot black top road.

Notes: (1) For bias tires

(2) The source of the velocity dependent term in the

rolling resistance equations may not be
dependent upon tire properties but rather on
friction in rotating parts.

Fa (aerodynamic drag) = Ca(A)(0.0024) V 2

Cp
where
 TABLE 1. (continued)

C, is a drag factor depending upon vehicle shape.

(Typical values of Ca are 0.9 for highway tractors
without aerodynamic aids and 0.7 for tractors with
aerodynamic shields.)

A (frontal area) = 102 ft2

C (elevation factor) = 1.0 at sea level
P
0.86 at 5,000'
0.74 at 10,000'
GR (overall gear ratio, including a rear axle ratio of
4.11)

Gear
Number Ratio

Tire factor (rpm/mph) = 8.4 for a 10 x 20 truck tire (504

rev. /mile 1
Engine Power and Torque Characteristics
(see attached graphs from [ 5 ] )
These data are characterized by a torque at 1400 rpm
that is approximately 1.3 times the torque at 2100 rpm, the
rated speed at which maximum power (260 hp) is delivered.
In other words, the torque increases by approximately 30%
going from rated speed down to the speed at which shifting
is expected to occur.
 TABLE 1. (continued)

2
W e (total equivalent) = W + g/Rt (Ie G: + It)
where
2 for a typical engine
I e = 2.58 ft lb sec
It = 170 ft lb sec2 for 18 10x20 tires

Rt = 1.667 ft for a 10x20 tire

W = gross vehicle weight
 'Tl
ENGINE TORQUE, Ib ft
'-t . ( I lb ft = 1.36 Nm )
9 ENGINE hp ( I hpr0.746 kW)
C
6
n,
 Although a driveline efficiency is used here in place
of chassis friction, the thrust and drag forces are nearly
equal to those employed in [5]. However, in computing
acceleration (see Figure 7) an equivalent weight is employed
to account for the inertia of rotating components, and a
tire factor of 8.4 rpm/mph corresponding to a typical
10 x 20 tire, was selected, The analysis in [5] used 8,55
rpm/mph which corresponds to a smaller 9 x 20 tire. These
seemingly small changes in tire factor (1.75%) and weight
(3.5% in 9th gear) cause a significant change in the
critical length of grade on slight upgrades (see Figure 8 ) .
On a 2% upgrade, for example, the critical length of grade
is approximately 2400 feet for a vehicle with an 8.55 rpm/
mph tire and a weight of 78,000 lb compared to approximately
2900' for a tire with 8.4 rpm/mph and an equivalent weight
of 80,710 lbs.
On steeper grades (for example, 4 and 6%), the level
road acceleration capability of the vehicle is a smaller
fraction of the existing acceleration (deceleration).
Hence, variations in vehicle parameters, such as the tire
factor and equivalent weight, have less influence on
acceleration performance on steep grades than they do on
moderate grades.
This review of the climbing lane criteria, given in [S]
and subsequently incorporated in [I], shows the criteria to
be representative of a relatively low powered loaded-heavy-
vehicle by 1977 standards (something like 84% of the
Figure 7. Level-road-acceleration versus velocity for a design
heavy truck in 9th gear.
vehicles weighing between 60 and 80 thousand pounds had
greater power to weight ratios). Even though the
calculation procedure given in [5] does not include the
effective mass of the vehicle, the results appear to be
representative of heavy vehicle performance on steep
upgrades in the speed range from 55 to approximately 30 mph.
At low speeds and on mild upgrades the influence of
effective mass should be included in the calculations.
During 1983, the Department of Commerce will conduct a
Truck Inventory and Use Survey pertaining to vehicles
operated in 1982. This 1982 data could be analyzed, using
the procedures employed by manufacturers and the highway
research community, to obtain an updated set of curves to be
used in evaluating the need for climbing lanes.
2.3.2 Heavy Truck Acceleration; Accelerating Time
Versus Distance Traveled During Acceleration. Data on
acceleration from a stop is used in determining sight
distance at intersections (see' Figure 9 which includes
Figure IX-15 page IX-48 of [I]). As indicated in the
figure, two heavy vehicles, referred to as "WB-50" and "SU,"
and a passenger car, "PIw have been assumed for design
purposes.
The WB-50 design-vehicle is intended to represent a
large tractor-semitrailer combination. Assuming that a
heavy vehicle similar to the one used in the climbing lane
application (see Section 2.2) is a suitable design vehicle
of the WB-50 class, the acceleration performance of a
 Super imposed Curves
-x-- X- - X 273 Ib/hp test data 1969 Study C61
X30 Ib/hp Design Vehicle (Based on TIU and
-ow- '--* figure of starting in 2nd gear.
-@-@- Same as above except starting in 1st gear
2 f t /sec2 average acceleration
-A--A--A (Approximation to 300 lb/hp result from
1969 Tests 161 1

Figure 9 . Information on acceleration from a stop.

300 lb/hp heavy truck can be used here to make a comparison
with the data given Figure IX-15 of [ I ] (see Figure 9).
Note that in Figure 9, 4 curves are superimposed on the
graphs presented in [I]. Two of these 4 curves represent
the calculated performance of the 300 lb/hp vehicle
described in Section 2.2. In one of these cases the vehicle
is started in first gear and in the other car the vehicle is
started in second gear. As shown, significantly better
performance is obtained by starting in second gear (a fact
that is well known to truck drivers).
Curves based on tests of heavy trucks [6] are also
added to Figure 9. These curves correspond to a 273 lb/
(1)

hp truck and ( 2 ) an average acceleration level of 2 ft/sec 2

approximating a typical truck with 300 lb/hp, operating in
1969 [6]. These curves agree with the calculated results
for the design vehicle when started in second year (the
conventional gear selection for starting on the level).
The assumed WB-50 curve given in the design policy
illustrates poorer performance than any of the 4 curves
superimposed in Figure 9. In this sense, the WB-50 curve
represents a conservative design policy, especially as long
as the trend is towards vehicles with higher horsepower-to-
weight ratios, less aerodynamic drag, and less rolling
resistance.
The assumed SU curve represents a straight truck with a
20 foot wheelbase. A great variety of vehicles fit within
this description. For example, a truck with a 12,000 lb
front axle and a 34,000 lb tandem rear axle-set is a
pos'sible candidate for a design vehicle of this class.
Example predictions of the acceleration performance of this
type of vehicle fall near the SU curve given in [ I ] .
However, in this case the assumed SU curve does not appear
to be as conservative as the assumed WB-50 curve. Given
current vehicle characteristics, certain fully loaded
straight trucks, that satisfy the bridge formula, may
require more time to accelerate across an intersection than
that shown in Figure IS-15 of [ I ] . A possible method for
resolving this situation would be to provide a more complete
definition of the SU design vehicle.
2.3.3 Passenqer Car ~cceleration; Accelerating Time
Versus Distance Traveled During Acceleration. In contrast
to the situation with heavy trucks (as discussed in the
previous section), passenger cars seldom accelerate at
maximum performance so knowledge of the maximum performance
capability of the vehicle is not as useful a s it is for
trucks. That is, an experienced driver uses the maximum
performance of a truck while a prudent driver does not
challenge the capabilities of the passenger car engine
(unless he/she wishes to spin wheels) in accelerating to
cross an intersection.
Possibly due to difficulties in determining "normal"
acceleration, the results given in Figure 11-13 of [ I ]
differ from those given in Table 6.47 of [ 7 ] . In studies of
ramps and speed change lanes [8], investigators have found
the tables given in [7] to be more representative of vehicle
performance on ramps than the information given in
Figure 11-13, Based on calculations of acceleration derived
from the curve representing the "assumed P" vehicle in
Figure IX-15, the average acceleration of the design
passenger car is, approximately 2.86 mph/sec compared to a
normal acceleration of 3.3 mph/sec given in the
Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook [7] for
speed changes from 0 to 30 mph. Or, as illustrated in
Figure 10, the calculated accelerating-time-versus-distance
curve (representing a normal acceleration of 3.3 mph/sec)
indicates shorter acceleration times than those required by
the "assumed P" vehicle. The AASHTO design policy is
conservative in that acceleration levels corresponding to
those normally chosen by passenger car drivers produce
acceleration times that are considerably shorter than those
given by AASHTO.
Hearne and Clark [91 have recen-tly studied passenger
car data reported by Consumer Reports, Motor Trend, and -
Car
and Driver magazines for two acceleration maneuvers,
specifically, (1) the time to accelerate from 45 to 65 mph,
and ( 2 ) the time to accelerate from 0 to 60 mph. That study
examined the trends in these measures of new vehicle
performance over the period from 1971 to 1979. The
resulting acceleration characteristics for the 1970's are
compared with the acceleration performance criteria used in
the "AASHO Blue Book" [ 101. The following findings from [9]
 60 80 100 120 140
S = DISTANCE TRAVELED WRING ACCELER#TION ( f t 1

Figure 10. Comparison of AASHTO and I T E i n f o r m a t i o n on

a c c e l e r a t i o n performance.
indicate that, even though passenger-vehicle acceleration-
performance has been decreasing since approximately 1958,
the acceleration performance of late model cars exceeds the
criteria employed in the AASHO Blue Book. (The AASHO

criteria are based on tests performed in 1937.) Between

1970 and 1980, the typical standard-sized car changed from
approximately 4000 lbs with a 350 in engine to
approximately 3300 lbs with less than 250 in3 of engine
displacement [9]. The implications of these changes are
illustrated in the times required to accelerate from 45 to
65 mph and 0 to 60 mph as shown in Tables 2 and 3 for model
years 1971, 1973, 1975, 1977, and 1979. The times given in
Tables 2 and 3 represent the car population for each model
year since they are obtained by weighting the performance of
each vehicle model in accordance with its annual sales
volume. The average weighted acceleration time from 0 to
60 mph increased from 12.7 sec. in 1971 to 15.5 sec. in 1979
(see Table 2) indicating a decline in automotive performance
during the 70's.
Clearly, overall acceleration performance has decreased
during the decade of the 70's.
Nevertheless, the performance of 1979 and 1981 vehicles
exceeds the AASHO criteria based on studies performed in
1937 (see Figures 1 1 and 12). Assuming that ( 1 ) normal
acceleration performance is primarily determined by driver
"taste" rather than by vehicle characteristics, and
(2) drivers continue to prefer the same normal acceleration
 70 -
SOURCE

60
A,,B -
AASHO BLUE BOOK

30 -
n
f
a
Y 40- FULL ACCEL.
a AVERAGE 1979
W
2
V)

20-

POOR-PERFORMING
10-

-'
0 v 1 1 I v

1 2 4 3 .15g 5
ACCELERATlON RATE (MPH/SEC.)

F i g u r e 11. Normal and f u l l a c c e l e r a t i o n r a t e s f o r a r a n g e of

s p e e d s [9].
 SOURCES I
A,B,C
O,E
-- AASHO BLUE BOOK
APPENOIX C J&s
7€sTS

I I

60
I

80
I I
loo
v I

120 *
v
140
I

160
I

DISTANCE TRAVELED WRING ACCUERATIW (FEET).

Figure 12. Relationship between acceleration time and distance

traveled during normal and full acceleration [9].
 TABLE 2
TIME REQUIRED FOR ACCELERATION FROM 0 to 60 MILES
PER HOUR FOR SELECTED MODEL YEARS [ 9 1

Year Time (sec.)

TABLE 3
TIME REQUIRED FOR ACCELERATION FROM 45 to 65
MILES PER HOUR [ 91

Average Accel.
Year Time (sec. ) Rate ( f p s )

performance as they did in 1937, then the difference between

normal acceleration (1937) and the full acceleration
capability of a vehicle may be interpreted as a margin of
safety for situations in which the driver finds a need for
accelerations that are greater than he/she would prefer to
use under normal circumstances. In [9] it is found that the
average weighted performance of 1979 models and a poorly
performing 1981 model exceed (by a wide margin) the normal
acceleration performance determined in 1937 (see Figures 1 1
and 12).
2.3.4 Passenger Car Acceleration; Length of
~cceleration Lanes, As stated in [2], "The length of
acceleration ramp required for an entrance is governed by
the difference between the running speed of the last ramp
curve or other constraint and that of the freeway, The
policy is that the length provided should be sufficient for
the motorist to reach a speed five miles per hour less than
the average running speed of the freeway by the time the
merge into the through lane is completed."
The acceleration characteristics of passenger cars are
used to determine the ramp length required. As illustrated
in Table 4 (Table X-5 from [I]), acceleration performance
from low to high initial speeds, v;, and from low to high
entrance speeds, V p , is considered in this application. In
other words, knowledge of the full range of acceleration
characteristics is needed.
The performance information presented by AASHTO has
been summarized in graphs of speed reached versus distance
traveled for initial speeds ranging from 0 to 50 mph in
increments of 5 mph (see Figure 13). Although Figure 13 is
a convenient form in which to display results, the curves
 TABLE 4
MINIMUM ACCELERATION LENGTHS FOR ENTRANCE TERMINALS
WITH FLAT GRADES OF 2 PERCENT OR LESS

Highway L = Acceleration Length (ft)

For Entrance Curve Design Speed (mph)

Design Speed Stop

Speed Reached Condi- 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
(mph) (V2)(mph) tion

And Initial Speed (v;) (mph)

provided b y AASHTO are based on relatively low levels of
acceleration such as those given by the "BPR, 1937, normal
accel." curve included in Figure 1 1 . More recent
information on normal acceleration is given in Table 5 as
presented in reference 171.
For comparison purposes, the AASWTO data [I]and the
ITE information [7] are presented on the same graph with
full acceleration curves for (1) a "40 watt/kgW car
representing a poorly performing vehicle for any year from
1967 to 1995 [12], ( 2 ) an average 1979 auto [9], and (3) a
poor performing 1981 car [9] (see Figure 14). I n addition
Figure 14 contains a curve representing a so called "design"
car. Examination of Figure 14 shows that the ITE
information for normal acceleration, based on a 1971 study,
falls between the full acceleration curves for the average
1979 auto and the "poor-performing" '81 model for
accelerations less than 0.159. Compared to the reported
performance capabilities of current vehicles, the normal
acceleration curve based on ITE information 171 appears to
be unreasonably high near the limit of vehicle performance.
Possibly, the decline in performance capability during the
period from 1960 to 1980 accounts for the situation in which
maximum performance in 1979 is close to the normal
acceleration performance determined in a study reported in
1971.
Transportation Research Record 772 [ 121, published in
1980, contains projections of the make up of the passenger
Figure 13. Normal acceleration from [l] plus superimposed
"design" curves at initial velocities of 0 and
30 mph.
 TABLE 5
NORMAL ACCELERATION OF PASSENGER CARS

Speed Acceleration
Change,mph mph/s

Source: NCHRP Project 2-5A, 1971 [11]

vehicle fleet in 1981, 1985, and 1995. These projections

are reasoned extrapolations from vehicle data for the years
1967 through 1978. Based on data for 1967 and 1978 and
projections for 1981, 1985, and 1995 (see reference 1121,
Figure 2 ) less than 10% of the passenger vehicles sold will
have, or, have had power capabilities less than 40 watts/kg
(approximately 0.025 hp/lb). An assessment of the
acceleration performance of a 40 watt/kg car is given in
[I21 and the results have been used to construct the
40 watt/kg curve presented in Figure 14. This curve falls
between the data reported in [9] representing the average
'79 and poor '80 vehicles. This agreement lends credence to
the proposition that a vehicle similar to the poor '81
vehicle or the 40 watt/kg vehicle approximately represents
 SOURCE
A,B - AASHO BLUE BOOK

FOCI. ACCLL.
AVERAGE I979

10-

ACCELERATION RATE (MPH/SEC.)

SUPERIMPOSED CURVES

-- ITE Handbook [ 7 ]

Figure 14.
- "Design" car
Comparisons of velocity versus acceleration
characteristics of passenger cars.
the acceleration capability of the low performance vehicles
of the future.
The question remains as to what curves should be used
for designing acceleration lanes. A possible choice is to
select a speed-versus-acceleration-rate-characteristic that
is deemed to be a rational mixture of driver preferences and
vehicle capabilities. For example, the curve labeled
"design" car in Figure 14 represents one such choice. In
this case an upper bound on acceleration is set at 0.15g per
the ITE information [7] at low speed. At speeds greater
than 20 mph, the acceleration rate decreases from roughly
70% of a poor vehicle's capability at 20 mph to an amount
that corresponds to almost all of that vehicle's capability
at 70 mph. Specifically, the average acceleration
capabilities for various speed ranges for this "designw car
are given in the following table:

TABLE 6
"DESIGN" CAR ACCELERATIONS

Average
Acceleration
Based on the accelerations provided in Table 6, the two
curves superimposed in Figure 13 are obtained for the
distance required to accelerate to various speeds from
initial speeds of 0 and 30 mph.
Examination of the curves presented in Figure 13
indicates that drastic changes in the lengths of
acceleration lanes are implied by the use of the design car
concept. For example, the original AASHTO curve indicate
that a distance of 1000 ft is required to accelerate from 30
to 50 mph, while, according to the curves for the design
car, a distance of 535 ft would be required to accelerate
from 30 to 50 mph. Clearly, such drastic changes should be
examined critically,
Possibly, the longer lengths are needed for entering
vehicles to find a gap in the traffic stream. Or, heavy
trucks (with nowhere near the acceleration capabilities
needed to match passenger cars) are a limiting factor.
Nevertheless, if design policy is to be based on the
acceleration of the car/drive: system, the AASHTO curves
should be re-examined and updated.
2.3.5 Passenger Cars; Passing on Two-Lane Hiqhways.
For passing on two lane highways, the design policy [ I ]
specifies the sight distances needed for one vehicle to pass
another before encountering oncoming traffic. The total
passing sight distance specified in [ I ] is divided into 4
parts: (1) initial acceleration distance, (2) distance
traveled in the left lane, ( 3 ) clearance safety margin, and
(4) distance traveled by the opposing vehicle. vehicle
acceleration performance is involved only in the first of
these four items.
The design policy provides the following information
(see Table 7 ) concerning the acceleration performance of the
passing vehicle during the initial maneuver.

TABLE 7
INITIAL MANEUVERING CHARACTERISTICS

Speed Group, mph

(passing vehicle)

Average passing
speed (mph)
Average acceleration
( mph/s

Time (seconds)
Initial maneuver
distance (ft.)

As observed in [9], the acceleration rates given in the

design policy can be compared with vehicle capabilities to
provide an indication of the "adequacy of the design
values. " Referring to Figure 1 1 in Section 2 . 3 . 3 , an
average acceleration of 1.5 mph/sec. can be exceeded up to a
maximum velocity that depends upon vehicle characteristics;
viz.,
 Max. Velocity for
Vehicle 1.5 mph/sec. Acceleration
1937, BPR 52 mph
Poor-performing 1981 model 60 mph
Average 1979 auto 64 mph
Examination of these data and Figure 1 1 indicate that the
design policy and car acceleration capabilities start to
approach each other in the 60-70 mph speed group.
However, the fact that the design values are close to
the capabilities of low powered vehicles may not be of great
significance. The contribution of the acceleration part to
the total passing sight distance is small, approximately 15%
of the total. In addition, drivers of low-powered vehicles
may be expected to refrain from attempting high-speed
passing-maneuvers, or at least, to fall back once they
observe that they do not have adequate power.
2.3.6 Recreational Vehicles: Hill Climbinq. The
power-to-mass ratio of recreational vehicles (RVs) are
approximately equal to one-half of the power to mass ratios
of passenger cars (possibly, because many of RVs are
composed of a car and a trailer of nearly equal weight). As
a conservative estimate of the lower bound of the 1978 RV
population, Glauz et al. [ 1 2 ] determined a power to mass
ratio of 19.7 w/kg (0.012 hp/lb). They predicted that this
lower bound on power-to-mass ratio would apply into the
future through 1995. Their estimate of the acceleration
performance of the lowest 10% performance of RVs is
summarized in the following graph.

Accel.

Speed
ft/sec

Figure 15. Acceleration performance of RV'S, 1978-95, [12].

Although the estimated acceleration characteristic

given in Figure 1 5 is a rough approximation to performance
capability near V = 79 ft/sec. (approximately 54 mph), we
have used that acceleration characteristic (Figure 15) to
computed distances for 10 mph speed reductions for upgrades
entered at 55 mph. Example results for a 10 mph reduction
in velocity are 1300 ft. on a 5% upgrade, 9 0 0 ft. on a 6%

upgrade, and 700 ft on a 7% upgrade. These points are

superimposed on Figure 16 which also contains (a) calculated
results obtained in [ 5 ] , and ( b ) measured data that is used
in AASHTO design policy [I]. Examination of Figure 16
indicates that the critical length of grade determined for a
0 . 0 1 2 hp/lb recreational vehicle is considerably less than
that specified by AASHTO (the dashed line).
This finding is not unexpected given the difference in
hp/wt. ratios involved (i.e., 0.022 versus 0 . 0 1 2 hp/lb).
However, measured results show that drivers of recreational
vehicles do not use all of the power available to them [5].
Hence the difference between (a) measured performance for a
0 . 0 2 2 hp/lb vehicle, and (b) calculated performance for a
0 . 0 1 2 hp/lb vehicle is not as large as it would be if
drivers used almost all of the available power.
No comprehensive source of information on the
acceleration performance of recreational vehicles has been
identified in this study. Nevertheless a large body of
sustained speed data has been obtained and processed in
California by Ching and Rooney [ 13 1 . For vehicleit ravel-
trailer combinations, they [ I 3 1 have observed that sustained
speeds of 4 3 mph on 3% upgrades and 3 0 mph on 6% upgrades
correspond to 1 2 . 5 percentile vehicles. By assuming an
acceleration characteristic of the following form, we have
used Ching and Rooney's data to add two more points to
Figure 16; viz,

= - RR - A V ~+ B/V

where
A is the average acceleration in g's
RR is a rolling resistance factor equal to 0 . 0 2
A is an aerodynamic drag factor equal to 4 . 7 6
(chosen to match the data in [ I 3 1 1
 \ /--15mph Speed Reduction7

--- 1
0rnph Speed Reduction

-. Projected lower 10% [12]

+5(8)
I,
--. & 5 mph Speed Reduction
--- --------
-Simulation Results [51
--- Highway Results [ 1,5] (Used by AASHTO)
-~easured lower 12.5% [ 13 I A ~ ~ a Speed
c h = 55mph (88.5km/h)
( I mph = 1.609km/h )
A 1
20bo
1 1

1 5b0 DO0 1500 2500

d

LENGTH OF GRADE, feet

( I f t =0.3048m)

Figure 16. Critical lengths of grade for design, assumed recreational vehicles and
field test data. [5]
 B is a thrust factor equal to 2.53 (chosen to match
the data in [ 1 3 ] )
and V is forward velocity in mph.
The results extrapolated from the sustained speed
information given in [ 1 3 ] indicate that the AASHTO values of
critical length of grade are much longer than those
corresponding to a low powered recreational vehicle. For
example, on a 6% upgrade the critical length is 1500 ft

according to the AASHTO curve while it is 8 0 0 ft for a low

powered recreational vehicle operated by a driver that only
uses approximately 0.007 hp/lb (i.e., 143 lb/hp). This
result does not appear to be unreasonable if the low-powered
vehicle had a capability of 0.012 hp/lb.
Even though only a few sources of data are available,
the approach used in extrapolating from Ching and Rooney's
results can be employed to develop design curves for
critical length of grade for both average and 12.5

percentile recreational vehicles. In the future we will

pursue the development of these design curves.
 3.0 SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS (PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS)

This section summarizes the suggestions presented in

various sections of this report and provides additional
insights to be considered in developing new design charts.
The following list of suggestions is based on comparing
current vehicle characteristics with the curves proposed for
the AASHTO design policy [ I ] :
1, The design curves, proposed in [ I ] for determining
the critical length of grade relating to the need for
climbing lanes, are representative of the acceleration
performance of low-powered heavy commercial vehicles
currently in use. The design vehicle has a weight-to-power
ratio of 300 lb/hp, which is higher than that applicable to
approximately 84% of the heavy vehicle fleet (60,000 to
80,000 lb range) in 1 9 7 7 , Once data from the TIU survey of
the 1982 truck fleet are available, the design curves should
be reevaluated and, if necessary, recalculated.
2. The design curves, used to determine accelerating
time in connection with sight distance at intersections,
appear to be conservative with respect to both the tractor-
semitrailer (WB-50) and the passenger car ( P ) design
vehicle. That is, even low-powered cars and trucks in the
current vehicle fleet are expected to be able to accelerate
faster than the design curves imply. The design curve for
the straight truck (SU) is difficult to evaluate because
this type of design vehicle is not well defined in the
AASHTO policy. From a vehicle characteristics standpoint,
the design policy could be improved if the acceleration
versus velocity characteristics of the design vehicles were
specified.
3. The recommended lengths of acceleration lanes are
based on estimates of the normal acceleration rates of
passenger cars. A discrepancy exists between the normal
acceleration performance presented in the AASHTO design
policy and the normal acceleration rates presented in the
ITE handbook, The preliminary findings of this study appear
to indicate that (a) the ITE values are higher than
appropriate for the current vehicle fleet, and (b) the
AASHTO values are considerably lower than needed. We
suggest that this matter requires further investigation and,
as suggested earlier, the presentation of acceleration
versus velocity characteristics for design vehicles would
aid in clarifying the basis for the speed-distance curves
used in highway design. Possibly, detailed results from [8]
will aid in defining appropriate levels of normal
acceleration at various operating speeds.
4. The design values of the average acceleration
during the initial maneuvering phase of passing on a two-
lane road appear to be reasonable, based on the
characteristics of an average 1979 auto and a poor-
performing 1981 model.
5, The design policy includes information on the
acceleration characteristics of recreational vehicles.
These characteristics are used for evaluating the need for
climbing lanes in situations where RV's are likely to impede
traffic. In this case the design policy is not
conservative, in that the acceleration characteristics of the
design vehicle are representative of an average car-travel-
trailer combination rather than a low-percentile (10 or
12.5%) vehicle. If deemed necessary, the critical length of
grade curves for an average RV could be augmented with
curves for a low-powered RV. (The approach suggested in
Section 2.3.6 could be applied here.)
From a vehicle dynamicist's point of view, the most
difficult part of understanding the AASHTO design policy (as
it pertains to acceleration performance) derives from a lack
of acceleration versus velocity information defining design
vehicles and normal acceleration performance. This matter
has already been alluded to in the list of suggestions just
presented. In the future we anticipate that greater
reliance will be placed on computerized methods in
performing design analyses. Models of vehicle acceleration
performance that are not unduly complex appear to be
suitable for use in highway design. Given appropriate
computational capabilities, specifications of acceleration
performance in terms of acceleration capability at various
speeds can be used to calculate results for a wide range of
situations. Changes in vehicle characteristics either due
to evolution over time or to idiosyncracies of a local
vehicle fleet can be readily accounted for, if suitable
(generally accepted) models are available. The dependence
upon specialized design charts may shift to the use of
fundamental information that can be used in a variety of
important applications. At some time in the future, both
fundamental information and particularly important results
based on that fundamental information could be presented in
a manner consistent with current models of acceleration
performance.
 4.0 REFERENCES

1. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.

NCHRP Project 20-7, Task A , Review Draft 2A, March
1981.
2. Cleveland, D.E. Technical Memorandum for Paul Fancher.
University of Michigan Department of Engineering,
August 31, 1982.
3. Fancher, P., et al. Retarders for Heavy Vehicles:
Evaluation of Performance Characteristics and in-
Service Costs. Vol. 1, Technical Report, University of
Michigan Highway Safety Research Institute, Contract
No. DOT-HS-9-02239, February 1981,
4. Bureau of Census. Truck Inventory and Use Survey.
1977 Census of Transportation, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Issued June 1979.
5. Hayhoe, G.F. and Grundmann, J.G. Review of Vehicle
~eight/~orsepowerRatios as Related to Passing Lane
Design Criteria. Final Report, NCHRP Project 20-7,
Task 10, Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, Report
PTI 7806, October 1978.
6. Hutton, T.D. Acceleration Performance of Highway
Diesel Trucks. SAE Paper No. 700664, August 1970.
7. Homburger, W.S., Keefer, L.E., and McGrath, W.R., eds.
Transportation and Traffic Engineerinq Handbook.
Second Edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1982.
8. Hayword, J.D., Fusetti, W.E., and Michele, J. Improved
Operations for Ramps and Speed Change Lanes - Executive
Summary. Report No. FHWA/RD-81/031, August 1981.
9. Hearne, D.R. and Clark, J.E. Acceleration
Characteristics of Late-Model Automobiles. 62nd Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, January
1983.
10. AASHO. A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural Highways.
1965.
11. NCHRP project 2-5A, 1971. (See NCHRP Report 111 for
information on this project.)
12. Glauz, W.D. et al. Projected Vehicle Characteristics
Through 1995, Transportation Research Record 772, 1980.
13. Ching, P.Y. and Rooney, F.D. Truck Speeds on Grades in
California, California Department of Transportation,
June 1979.
 APPENDIX A

LITERATURE REVIEW:
ACCELERATION PERFORMANCE OF HEAVY TRUCKS
A.l The C r i t i c a l Length of Grade

The " c r i t i c a l l e n g t h of grade" i s d e f i n e d [18]* a s " t h e maximum

l e n g t h of a d e s i g n a t e d upgrade upon which a loaded t r u c k can o p e r a t e
w i t h o u t a n unreasonable r e d u c t i o n i n speed." T h i s d e f i n i t i o n is
given numerical s i g n i f i c a n c e by (1) a s s e s s i n g t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n p e r f o r -
mance of a t y p i c a l v e h i c l e t o be used f o r d e s i g n purposes and (2)
e s t a b l i s h i n g a d e s i g n "bogie" f o r what c o n s t i t u t e s a r e a s o n a b l e r e d u c t -
t i o n i n speed. I n 1965, t h e AASHTO P o l i c y [ 3 ] used performance calcu-
l a t i o n s based on a heavy t r u c k w i t h a weight-to-horsepower r a t i o of
400 l b / h p and a n a c c e p t a b l e l o s s of speed of 1 5 mph f o r a v e h i c l e e n t e r -
i n g t h e g r a d e i n q u e s t i o n a t 47 mph, A r e c e n t d r a f t r e v i s i o n of t h i s
P o l i c y [18] employs c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r a 300 l b / h p t r u c k and recommends a
speed l o s s of 1 0 mph. An e n t e r i n g speed of 55 mph i s used i n t h e r e c e n t
calculations. The r e a s o n s f o r t h e s e changes a r e (1) t o be more r e p r e -
s e n t a t i v e of t h e performance of t h e c u r r e n t heavy t r u c k f l e e t and ( 2 ) t o
avoid t h e sudden i n c r e a s e i n a c c i d e n t involvement r a t e t h a t i s r e p o r t e d
t o occur when t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t r u c k speed and t h e average running
speed exceeds approximately 1 0 mph [20] .
Graphs of c r i t i c a l l e n g t h of grade may be c o n s t r u c t e d from speed-
d i s t a n c e c u r v e s d e p i c t i n g t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n ( d e c e l e r a t i o n ) performance of
a heavy t r u c k o p e r a t i n g on upgrades of v a r i o u s amounts ( f o r example, s e e
Figure 1 ) . F i g u r e 1 can be c r o s s - p l o t t e d t o c o n s t r u c t l i n e s of c o n s t a n t
speed r e d u c t i o n a s shown i n F i g u r e 2. A s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 2, a
highway d e s i g n e r can e n t e r t h i s graph a t a d e s i g n a t e d g r a d e (on t h e
v e r t i c a l a x i s ) and r e a d t h e c r i t i c a l l e n g t h of g r a d e (from t h e h o r i -
z o n t a l a x i s ) f o r a s e l e c t e d r e a s o n a b l e r e d u c t i o n i n speed.

*References i n t h i s appendix r e f e r t o t h e b i b l i o g r a p h y given on

page 87.
Decelemtion (on Percent Upgrades Indicated )
DISTANCE, km

DISTANCE, thousands of feet

-,
i l g u r e 1. Speed-Distance Curves f o r a T y p i c z l Heavy Truck
Figure 2. C r i t i c a l Lengths o f Grade f o r Design, Assumed Typical Heavy Truck
of 300 l b / h p (182.5 k g / k ~ ) ,Entering Speed = 55 mph (88.5 lan/h)
[I91
A.2 The O r i g i n s of M H T O Design P o l i c y and Subsequent Developments
w i t h Respect t o t h e P r e d i c t i o n of Truck D e c e l e r a t i o n i n
Climbing a Grade

This s e c t i o n reviews t h e s t a t e of t h e a r t i n p r e d i c t i n g t h e a c c e l e r a -
t i o n performance of heavy v e h i c l e s .

I n 1955, Huff and S c r i v n e r [ I ] presented a s i m p l i f i e d theory f o r

d e s c r i b i n g t h e motion of heavy v e h i c l e s on grades. They employed a very
simple v e h i c l e model based on t h e following expression of Newton's laws
of motion:

-1 (-1dV -- sine
g dt W

where
W is t h e g r o s s weight of t h e v e h i c l e
V is t h e forward v e l o c i t y
t i s time
g is t h e g r a v i t a t i o n a l c o n s t a n t
P is the net driving force
6 i s t h e grade a n g l e

For t h e . p u r p o s e s of developing a simple model, they neglected t h e

i n e r t i a l r e s i s t a n c e due t o t h e a n g u l a r a c c e l e r a t i o n of t h e r o t a t i n g wheels,
transmission, engine, e t c . , and lumped t o g e t h e r t h e i n f l u e n c e s of r o l l i n g
r e s i s t a n c e , aerodynamic drag, transmission ( d r i v e l i n e ) e f f i c i e n c y , engine
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and d r i v e r s h i f t i n g performance.

The h e a r t of t h e i r approach was a graph of P/W ( n e t d r i v i n g f o r c e

d i v i d e d by weight) v e r s u s v e l o c i t y ( s e e Figure 3 ) . As indicated i n the
f i g u r e , maximum s u s t a i n e d speeds f o r v a r i o u s l e v e l s of grade were used t o
c o n s t r u c t t h e graph of P/w v e r s u s V.

To f i n d v e l o c i t y information, Huff and S c r i v n e r i n t e g r a t e d t h e

equation of motion (Eq. (1))with P/W r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e f u n c t i o n of
v e l o c i t y t h a t they developed from f i e l d data. A f u r t h e r i n t e g r a t i o n of t h e
v e l o c i t y r e s u l t s produced d i s t a n c e information t h a t was used i n c o n s t r u c t -
i n g speed-distance curves.
 Figure 3. P/W Versus V [I].

I n o r d e r t o check o r c o r r e c t t h e d a t a presented i n F i g u r e 3 , road

t e s t s were performed i n 1953 u s i n g a 57,180-1b t e s t v e h i c l e . By analyzing
t h e t e s t r e s u l t s , a new v e r s i o n of t h e "P/W versus V" curve was developed
( s e e Figure 4 ) .

The a u t h o r s of [ 1 ] concluded t h a t (1) even under c o n t r o l l e d c o n d i t i o n s

w i t h a s k i l l e d d r i v e r , t h e speed-distance r e l a t i o n s h i p i s n o t always con-
s i s t e n t , ( 2 ) t h e speed-distance curves computed by t h e s i m p l i f i e d theory
correspond t o t h e t e s t d a t a and a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y a c c u r a t e f o r use i n t h e
design of climbing l a n e s , and ( 3 ) t h e SAE procedure ( i n 1955) f o r computing
F i g u r e 4. Graph of P/W Versus V from 1953 r o a d - t e s t data ( s o l i d
l i n e ) and from SAE ruck A b i l i t y P r e d i c t i o n Procedure"
(dashed l i n e ) . [I].
maximum s u s t a i n e d speeds f o r any weight-to-horsepower r a t i o provides v a l u e s
t h a t could be used i n conjunction w i t h t h e s i m p l i f i e d a n a l y s i s t o p r e d i c t
t r u c k motion, a t l e a s t approximately, without r e s o r t i n g t o f u l l - s c a l e
tests.

Although more s o p h i s t i c a t e d a n a l y t i c a l methods a r e c u r r e n t l y employed

l e a d i n g one t o c h a l l e n g e t h e conclusions of t h i s i n i t i a l s t u d y , neverthe-
l e s s , t h e b a s i c elements of developing a method f o r p r e d i c t i n g t r u c k
a c c e l e r a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on grades a r e i l l u s t r a t e d i n Reference [ I ] .
S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e s e b a s i c elements c o n s i s t of ( 1 ) s e l e c t i n g a model of both
s u f f i c i e n t accuracy and s i m p l i c i t y , (2) developing methods f o r o b t a i n i n g
p a r a m e t r i c v a l u e s and e m p i r i c a l f u n c t i o n s t h a t a r e s u i t a b l e f o r (a) use i n
t h e model and (b) r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e performance of v e h i c l e s on highway
grades, and (3) e v a l u a t i n g t h e p r a c t i c a l i t y of u s i n g a l i m i t e d s e t of b a s i c
information on v e h i c l e s t o minimize t h e need f o r r e s o r t i n g t o f u l l - s c a l e
tests.

I n 1962, F i r e y and Peterson [ 2 ] devised a means f o r c a l c u l a t i n g t h e

speed versus d i s t a n c e h i s t o r y of l a r g e t r u c k s t r a v e r s i n g v e r t i c a l curves a t
wide-open t h r o t t l e . They employed a model of t h e v e h i c l e t h a t t r e a t e d t h e
n e t d r i v i n g f o r c e i n more d e t a i l t h a n was done i n [ I ] . I n [2], the driving
f o r z e was d i v i d e d i n t o two c o m p o n e n t ~ t h et h r u s t f o r c e due t o engine
t o r q u e , FT, and a " t o t a l r o l l i n g r e s i s t a n c e " f o r c e i n c l u d i n g both t i r e and
a i r r e s i s t a n c e , FR. The t o t a l r e s i s t a n c e f o r c e ,
F ~ 'was c a l c u l a t e d by
means of an e m p i r i c a l equation based on c o a s t i n g t e s t s of s e v e r a l l a r g e
commercial v e h i c l e s . The engine t h r u s t f o r c e , FT, was based on t h e brake
horsepower of t h e engine, r a t e d engine speed, a t i r e s i z e f a c t o r ( e f f e c t i v e
r o l l i n g r a d i u s ) , and t h e gear r a t i o s of t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n , a u x i l i a r y t r a n s -
mission, and t h e d r i v e a x l e .

I n a d d i t i o n , t h e a u t h o r s [ 2 ] analyzed 5 0 t h c o n s t a n t grades and v e r t i -

c a l c u r v e s , and they observed t h a t s e p a r a t e c a l c u i a t i o n s a p p l i e d when
(1) t h e t h r o t t l e was wide open and ( 2 ) t h e c l u t c h was disensaged and t h e
d r i v e r was s h i f t i n g gears. They noted t h a t " t h e r e i s no such t h i n g a s
' typical' or 'standard' gearing i n these trucks,. .." and adopted a calcula-
t i o n procedure based on a "usable engine s?eed r a t i o " of 0.8. (For example,
during d e c e l e r a t i o n , a downshift i s assumed :o occur when t h e v e i o c i t y
reaches 0.8 times t h e maximum v e h i c l e speed a t t a i n a b l e i n t h e assumed gearing
arrangement.) Although they made s e p a r a t e c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r t h e wide-open-
t h r o t t l e (WOT) and g e a r - s h i f t p e r i o d s , they smoothed t h e i r r e s u l t s because
t h e assumed s h i f t p o i n t s d i d not correspond t o any r e a l v e h i c l e (see
Figure 5).

Comparisons between c a l c u l a t e d and measured speeds a r e presented i n

[ 2 ] f o r a s a g and a summit curve and f o r numerous cases on v a r i o u s v e r t i c a l
curves. The agreement shown between t e s t and c a l c u l a t i o n appears t o be
v e r y good and i t i s s t a t e d t h a t i n cases where t h e d i f f e r e n c e between
c a l c u l a t e d and measured v a l u e s is more than 2 mph, t h e d r i v e r e i t h e r d i d
n o t o p e r a t e t h e t h r o t t l e as assumed ( i . e . , wide open), o r t h e gearing was
such t h a t t h e d r i v e r had d i f f i c u l t y achieving t h e t h e o r e t i c a l maximum
s u s t a i n e d speed.

C l e a r l y , References [ l and 21 .do n o t c o n s t i t u t e an exhaustive l i t e r a -

t u r e s e a r c h , b u t t h e y a r e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e s t a t e of t h e a r t p r i o r t o
1965 and t h e p u b l i c a t i o n by t h e M H O ( c u r r e n t l y AASHTO) of "A P o l i c y on
Geometric Design of Rural Highways" [ 3 ] . For example, grap'ns from Huff
and S c r i v n e r [ I ] a r e presented on page 197 of t h e -4ASHO p o l i c y [3].

Since 1 9 6 5 , numerous o r g a n i z a t i o n s have developed c a l c u l a t i o n pro-

cedures f o r p r e d i c t i n g t h e acceleration/deceleration performance of t r u c k s
on grades. Vehicle, transmission, and engine manufacturers have developed
computer programs f o r a i d i n g customers i n s e l e c t i n g v e h i c l e components
(engine, t r a n s m i s s i o n , r e a r a x l e s , e t c . ) t h a t w i l l provide s a t i s f a c t o r y
s e n T i c e i n t h e o p e r a t i n g environment a n t i c i p a t e d by t h e customer ( f o r
exazple, s e e Beferences [ 4 through 61). These computer programs a r e based
on t h e nechanics (physics) of v e h i c l e motion. The p a r z n e t e r s ussd i n t h e s e
7rograrns a r s s e i e c t e d t o r e p r e s e n t s p e c i f i c v e h i c l e s , :.ie;r COlll?Gz2T.~~,
t h e grades t h e v e h i c l e s o p e r a t e on, and t h e manner i n ;.-hich t h e d r i v e r s n i r ' t s
gears and c o n t r o l s t h e t h r o t t l e .

Although t h e i n d i v i d u a l computer programs c u r r e n t l y used i n t h e truck-

i n g f i e l d may d i f f e r i n implementation d e t a i l s and computational a l g o r i t h m s ,
t h e b a s i c p h y s i c a l f a c t o r s included i n t h e s e programs ;re v e l l described i n
an SAE auckendale l e c t u r e presented by G. Smith [ 7 ] . Smith s t a t e s c h a t
Figure 5. Example of Truck Speed vs. Distance H i s t o r y on
an Upgrade [ 2 ] .
11
f o r performance c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , t h e important f o r c e s a c t i n g on a v e h i c l e
a r e t h e d r i v i n g f o r c e s from t h e power p l a n t , t i r e r o l l i n g and cornering
f o r c e s , aerodynamics, and t h e weight of t h e v e h i c l e i t s e l f " ( s e e Figure
6). The curve r e s i s t a n c e f o r c e , F
d e r i v i n g from t i r e cornering f o r c e ,
c'
i s , obviously, n o t important f o r s t r a i g h t - l i n e motion, but i t can be impor-
t a n t f o r slowly moving v e h i c l e s n e g o t i a t i n g curves on an upgrade. (This i s
a f a c t o r which might be overlooked i n s e l e c t i n g s i i e s f o r f i e l d s t u d i e s o r
i n e s t i m a t i n g v e h i c l e speeds on winding roads.) The o t h e r f o r c e s shown
i n Figure 6 ( i . e . , Ft, Fr, Fa, and W s i n 8) a r e t h e b a s i c f a c t o r s u t i l i z e d
i n computerized models, The r o l l i n g r e s i s t a n c e f o r c e , F
i s primarily
r'
dependent upon v e r t i c a l l o a d , but a s m a l l t e r n p r o p o r t i o n a l t o v e l o c i t y i s
sometimes included. The aerodynamic drag, Fa, i s p r o p o r t i o n a l t o v e l o c i t y
squared, thereby making i t unimportant a t low speeds, but important a t
high speed.

Since 1970 (when [ 7 ] was p r e s e n t e d ) , t h e increased emphasis on f u e l

economy has i n c r e a s e d t h e u s e of r a d i a l t i r e s and aerodynamic s h i e l d s
(aero-aids) on t r u c k s . For approximating t h e i n f l u e n c e of r a d i a l t i r e s ,
r o l l i n g r e s i s t a n c e f o r c e s have been reduced t o approxinately 0.7 times t h e
r o l l i n g r e s i s t a n c e used f o r b i a s t i r e s [ 8 ] , S i m i l a r l y , f o r approximating
t h e i n f l u e n c e of aerodynamic s h i e l d s , aerodynamic f o r c e s have been reduced
t o approximately 0.9 t o 0 . 7 times t h e aerodynamic drag of a comparable
v e h i c l e without drag r e d u c t i o n devices [a]. i:'ith r e s p e c t t o t h e s e "natural"
s o u r c e s of r e t a r d a t i o n , a l l f o u r p o s s i b l e comjinations ( r a d i a l o r non-
r a d i a l t i r e s and w i t h o r without aerodynamic improvements) e x i s t i n t h e
v e h i c l e f l e e t and t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s have a noticeable e f f e c t on performance.

-
- +- -'.s
- a end F
Seen estimated t5,at without aero-aids 2nd r a d i a l t i r e s , t h e

- i s ap?roxinatsly equivalent t o the lnflcence

nsavp t r u c k t r a v e l i n g a t 50 mpn [ 7 , 8 ] .
SUT.

o f a 2% grade f o r a
Xith zero-aids and r a d i a l t i r e s ,
of

t h i s n a t u r a l r e t a r d a t i o n i s reduced t o being approxinately e q u i v a l e n t t o

a 1.2'; grade.

Sot2 t h a t t h e equation f o r v e h i c l e a c c e l e r s c l c n ? r e s e n t e d i n Figure

6 employs an e q u i v a l e n t weight f a c t o r , W e , which i n c l u d e s t h e i n f l u e n c e of
t h e r o t a t i n s cozponents. For e s a n p l e , i f a tractcr-ss:.itrailer had (1) 18
1 0 ~ 2 0t i r e s , ( 2 ) an e n g i n e / c l u t c h i n e r t i a of 2 f t - l b - s s c r , (3) a t r a n s ~ i s s i o n
ratio of 1 2 . 5 i n t h e l o v e s t g e a r and 1 . 0 i n the hlznesr g e a r , and ( I )a
 Note: % :r C e to'&
3
(Fr+ Fa+ Fc+ Wstne)

vehicle weight plua the trmr-

lat?o& of the rotat- ~ M I Q U .

Figure 6. Vehicle Free-Body Diagram. [7] .

r e a r a x l e r a t i o of 4 , then c a l c u l a t i o n s show t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n a l weight
f a c t o r , AW = W
e
- W, i s 58,800 l b s i n t h e lowest gear and 1,800 l b s i n t h e
h i g h e s t gear. For an 80,000-lb v e h i c l e o p e r a t i n g a t high speeds ( t h a t i s ,
i n t h e h i g h e s t g e a r ) , t h e i n f l u e n c e of o m i t t i n g AW would amount t o approxi-
mately a 2 t o 3% e r r o r i n a c c e l e r a t i o n c a p a b i l i t y . However, a t very low
speeds, even f o r a n 80,000-lb v e h i c l e , We i s 1.735W, t h a t i s , t h e i n f l u e n c e
of o m i t t i n g AW amounts t o approximately a 60% over-estimate of the accelera-
t i o n of t h e v e h i c l e . C l e a r l y , t h e importance of the i n f l u e n c e of the
r o t a t i n g components ranges from minor a t high speed t o major a t crawl
speeds.

The primary d i f f e r e n c e between s u s t a i n e d speed performance and p e r f o r -

mance during a c c e l e r a t i o n r e l a t e s t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e between W e and W. At
s u s t a i n e d speed n e i t h e r t h e r o t a t i n g components nor t h e v e h i c l e a r e
a c c e l e r a t i n g and t h e r e q u i r e d t h r u s t f o r c e balances t h e drag f o r c e s , v i z . :

Ft
= Fr + Fa,+ W sin 0 + Fc

When a v e h i c l e i s l o s i n g speed on an upgrade, t h e energy s t o r e d i n t h e

r o t a t i n g components t e n d s t o a i d t h e engine torque i n attempting t o main-
,,ic
+.- speed. I f t h e v e h i c l e i s i x r e a s i n g speed, p a r t of t h e engine t h r u s t
i s r e q u i r e d t o a c c e l e r a t e t h e r o t a t i n g components, thereby reducing t h e
f o n i a r d a c c e l e r a t i o n of t h e v e h i c l e .

The i n f l u e n c e of e l e v a t i o n i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n p r e d i c t i n g a c c e l e r a t i o n
performance. Following t h e development presented i n [ 7 ] , t h e corrected
horsepower, hpc, i s r e l a t e d t o e l e v a t i o n by t h e following p a i r of equations:

hpc = CP :?DO

where CF i s an e l e v a t i o n c o r r e c t i o n f a c z o r aad hpo i s t h e

n e t engine horsepower i n c l u d i n g t h e i n f l u e n c e of t h e power
r e q u i r e d by a c c e s s o r i e s , and
where E' = e l e v a t i o n ( f t ) above t h e s t a t e d e l e v a t i o n on
t h e given horsepower curve (hpo)

For example, i f E ' i s 5,000 f t , t h e n CF = 0.8, t h a t i s , a t a m i l e above

s e a l e v e l t h e n e t horsepower a v a i l a b l e f o r g e n e r a t i n g t h r u s t , Ft, i s
approximately 20% l e s s than t h a t s t a t e d f o r a s t a n d a r d e l e v a t i o n ( t y p i c a l l y
500 f t o r s e a l e v e l ) .

( I n c i d e n t a l l y , aerodynamic drag a l s o d e c r e a s e s with a l t i t u d e because

t h e d e n s i t y of t h e a i r d e c r e a s e s . )

For a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s and a l s o f o r understanding t h e performance of

a p a r t i c u l a r v e h i c l e , t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between engine power and torque and
engine speed a r e r e q u i r e d . Engine power i n c r e a s e s w i t h engine speed,
r e a c h e s a maximum n e a r r a t e d speed, and f a l l s o f f r a p i d l y above r a t e d speed
due t o governor c o n t r o l ( s e e F i g u r e 7 and Reference [9]). C l e a r l y , t h e
t o r q u e a t f u l l t h r o t t l e v a r i e s w i t h engine speed i n a manner t h a t i s r e l a t e d
t o t h e manner i n which power v a r i e s w i t h engine speed; f o r example, compare
t h e f u l l t h r o t t l e curves shown i n F i g u r e s 7 and 8. I n t h i s case, the
engine torque v e r s u s speed f u n c t i o n s a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by maximum t o r q u e s
t h a t occur a t approximately 5 1 7 of t h e r a t e d engine speed, even though maxi-
-. -
..,,, power i s o b t a i n e d a t r a t e d s n g i n e speed. T y p i c a l l y , f o r n o r z a l l i n e -

h a u l o p e r a t i o n an u p s h i f t i s attempted when t h e engine speed i s g r e a t e r

than t h e r a t e d engine speed [ 9 ] . A f t e r completing t h e g e a r s h i f t , t h e engine
speed w i l l be below t h e r a t e d speed by an amount t h a t depends upon (1) t h e
g e a r " s p l i t s ," i. e. , t h e d e c r e a s i n g r a t i o s between g e a r s involved, and ( 2 )
t h e amount t h e v e h i c l e slows down during t h e s h i f t i n g p e r i o d . The t r a n s -
n i s s i o n , d r i v e a x l e r a t i o , and t i r e r a d i u s may be arranged so t h a t the
i r i : i a l engine speed, a t t a i n e d a f t e r s h i f t i n g g e a r s , i s approximately equal
- . -,.,? zasirnurn corque s?eed. Even though :ne engine p m e r 1 s ir,,cla~-,y
,L
. - *

s s i o w r a t e d power when a new gear i s s e l e c t e d , t h e engine torque nay be

higher than t h e torque a t r a t e d engine speed, (This phenomenon i s sometimes
q u a z t i f i e d by a term c a l l e d "torque r i s e . " )

Although t h e v e h i c l e ' s t h r u s t f o r c e depends upon t h e combination of

engine t o r q u e , gear r e d u c t i o n s , d r i v e l i n e l o s s e s ( c h a s s i s f r i c t i o n ) , and
; i r e r a d i u s , t h e ma:iimun s u s t a i n e d c a p a b i l i t y of :he v e h i c l e i s l i m i ~ e dby
Fig- re 7 . Power Versus Speed ( r e l a t i v e fuel i s l a n d s w i t , l i n e s of c o n s t a n t
s p e c i f i c f u e l consumption a t t h e i n d i c a t e d r a c i o s above t h e
minimum 0 , 2 2 9 ~ g / h p h r ) [ 9 ] .
Figure 8. Full Throttle and Closed Throttle Engine Torque Curves [ 9 ] .
t h e r a t e d horsepower of t h e engine. For a given horsepower l i m i t , t h e
d r i v e t h r u s t a t t h e wheels w i l l b e l a r g e a t low v e h i c l e speeds correspond-
i n ? t o low g e a r s ( h i g h g e a r r a t i o s ) and low a t high v e h i c l e speeds
corresponding t o h i g h g e a r s (low g e a r r a t i o s ) .

The l e v e l of d r i v e t h r u s t , F t , a c t u a l l y a v a i l a b l e a t t h e road wheels

depends upon t h e t h r o t t l e s e t t i n g and t h e d r i v e l i n e l o s s e s . By modulating
t h e t h r o t t l e , t h e d r i v e r can o b t a i n any engine t o r q u e between t h e closed
and f u l l t h r o t t l e c a p a b i l i t y of t h e engine ( s e e F i g u r e 8 ) . However, d r i v e r s
of l a r g e t r u c k s u s u a l l y a c c e l e r a t e through t h e g e a r s a t f u l l t h r o t t l e [ 7 ]
(":hey put t h e p e d a l t o t h e metal" s o t o speak). Hence, i t i s common
p r a c t i c e t o make c a l c u l a t i o n s a t f u l l t h r o t t l e . The d r i v e l i n e l o s s e s can
be r e p r e s e n t e d by an e f f i c i e n c y f a c t o r and/or a v i s c o u s l o s s f a c t o r . For
t y p i c a l t r a n s m i s s i o n s and d r i v e a x l e s , t h e e f f i c i e n c y i s n e a r l y c o n s t a n t
between f u l l t h r o t t l e and approximately 30% t h r o t t l e [7]. \%en t h e e n t i r e
d r i v e l i n e i s considered, i t s e f f i c i e n c y tends t o be n e a r l y c o n s t a n t f o r a l l
gears [7]. Current computational procedures employ d r i v e l i n e e f f i c i e n c i e s
ranging from 0.94 f o r highway v e h i c l e s w i t h automatic transmissions and
s i a g l e d r i v e a x l e s t o 0.86 f o r 6x4 highway t r a c t o r s w i t h manual t r a n s -
missions [4-71. The d r i v e l i n e e f f i c i e n c y r e l a t e s d i r e c t l y t o t h e d r i v e
-?-..,.^A r:aila5le a t t h e road wheels and i t r e p r e s e n t s a s i g r . i f i c a n t l o s s
i n t h e f o r c e a v a i l a b l e a t t h e d r i v e wheels. For example, f o r a 70,000-lb
-
4 L l e t h a t i s t r a v e l i n g a t 3 7 . 5 mph w i t h a 250 hp engine, a d r i v e l i n e
.J ,.7A
s f f l c i e n c y of 0.86 r e p r e s e n t s a l o s s of 35 hp which i s approximately
e q u i v a l e n t t o a change i n grade of 0.5%, t h a t i s ,

Ci:?d~ational procedures jased on ~ n -ir.si;a:

r?a ? r ' a ~ t c r , ~ e 3 ~ r i b i'3y
:
SrLzh [TI can produce very a c c u r a t e r e s u l t s f o r well-defined v e h i c l e s
s t e r a t i n g on a c c u r a t e l y d e s c r i b e d highway r o u t e s [ 7 , 9 ] . In o r d e r t o make
a c c c r z t e p r e d i c t i o n s of f u e l consumption, r e a l i s t i c r e p r e s e t t a t i o n s o f
d r i v t r c o n t r o l 7 r a c t i c e s a r e needed. This requirement xeans t h a t manu-
f e c t u r e r s , who a r e a t t e m p t i n g t o a i d customers i n s e l e c t i a g v e h i c l e s t o
? ~ :.-.zss,
r a r e faced :,:it5 t h e sz:,e d i f f i c u l t y a s h i g h v z - e?gLneers, w3.c e r e
zrying t o ? r e d i c t how v e h i c l e s w i l l b e d r i v e n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , both manu-
f a c t u r e r s and highway engineers need t o know how d r i v e r s w i l l o p e r a t e
vehicles i n service. I n t h i s r e g a r d , r u l e s f o r when t o s h i f t g e a r s and
f o r z o d u l a t i n g t h e t h r o t t l e a r e given i n [ 9 ] and s h i f t i n g periods a r e s a i d
=o be from 1 t o 2 seconds f o r v e h i c l e s w i t h manual t r a n s m i s s i o n s [ 7 ] .

N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e r e i s a dichotomy between a manufacturer's and a

iighwap engineer' s p e r s p e c t i v e on p r e d i c t i n g a c c e l e r a t i o n performance. The
a n u f a c t u r e r combines d e t a i l e d and s p e c i f i c information p e r t a i n i n g t o a
? a r t i c u l a r v e h i c l e i n o r d e r t o p r e d i c t a c c e l e r a t i o n performance (see Figure
9 , f o r example). I n t h i s c a s e , t h e c a l c u l a t i o n procedure c o n t a i n s d e t a i l e d
i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e s p e c i f i e d engine, t r a n s m i s s i o n ,
r e a r a x l e , and engine a c c e s s o r i e s l i s t e d i n F i g u r e 9. The v e h i c l e i s
s t a r t e d i n second g e a r because t h e r e i s enough t o r q u e a v a i l a b l e . In the
second g e a r , as i n d i c a t e d i n F i g u r e 9 , i t appears t h a t t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n
l e v e l may b e l i m i t e d by t i r e / r o a d f r i c t i o n . Although t h e d e s c r i p t i v e
f a c t ~ r s( p r i n t e d below t h e , graphs i n F i g u r e 9) do n o t c o n t a i n d r i v e r
z h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , t h e p l o t t e d r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t a t~lo-second period was
allowed f o r s h i f t i n g and probably t h e simulated d r i v e r s t a r t e d t o u p - s h i f t
when t h e engine speed exceeded r a t e s speed. Also, t h e t h r o t t l e was n o s t
l i k e l y wide open. I t i s o u r understanding t h a t d r i v e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s an
a r s z where ~ . a n u f a c t u r i n go r g a n i z a t i o n s may f e e l t h a t t3ev have an edge over
:heir competition. I n c o n t r a s t t o t h e manufacturer, the highway engineer
nay 2 o t have d e t a i l e d information on t h e v e h i c l e he wishes t o analyze. In
f a c t , t h e highway engineer may wish t o analyze t h e average o r t h e 1 5 t h
7 e r c e n t i l e d r i v e r - v e h i c l e combination. It appears t h a t t h e highway engineer

C. . .
L T . ~ .:lz.h.Way engineer i s i n t e r e s t e d i n how ve3,iclss 2ormaliy o;erate
on t 3 e road. I n s e r v i c e , t r u c k s may n o t be i n a n o p t i c a l c o n d i t i o n and
i r i 7 ; e r s k i l l r a y i n f l u e n c e a c c e l e r a t i o n perfornancs. I2 a c a r e f u l l y
.-
: c n t r c l l = t stud:: i133 , zucton, w i t h a i d f r3n t h e :;ss:zrn
-..
5rghwa:: Ins:i~utz
and t h e Oregon S t a t e P o l i c e , examined t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n of heavy t r u c k s
-'-
-..--
=+
:*.-ere er.za?ed i:: p e r f o n i n g t h e i r goods-carrying r r . i s s i o ~a s d r i v e n by
regclarly assigned drivers. According t o Hutton, "Dri-:er s k i l l was
 U O ) S CORSIIUTIOII U f O l T SOOW. TIM TO RKn WED 56.0 iW
cm~m izatte n-cto ~ l ~c~zwr
w OH WIU WELS a*. IS 01.0 YCZRDS.
TI#N1115SlM CULLER nOlll@O? T O r Y ME&YEIW Jl*.
rYP(1LUIT TWWHS1011 I# IIO(TU YU #s.e, P I S T W T R M M IS SI39. mt
u-4n
malt4
rW uLL RltlOS
tsu D I W ~ I ~ I ~
144m
s.38 - 1
WM -SOW
II)7W#
cwmm~#t~m
COW 3U111

z:~.
ul- wLxn U)(C - ~ A C I Wus trm
tm mutm WZW n.u sma c u l m ~ mam UI. WIWD LIM - DlSIMI w TUI
~ I RIL)IZIW~ rrwwn a.~aio9, u ~ r tm
~ ~
t rrom
RICTICU W S F Y T O I
WLI# IUlST CIttQI
O.4?
7.280
6.840
-- I
t
3
~1mn*c85
CLN rv STMT
UI)(D5?tm ,.ma
I.
W O W U U . ~

0.
am 0.001

Figure 9. Computed velocity and distance time histories [ 4 ] .

probably one of t h e l a r g e s t of a l l t h e many v a r i a b l e s t h a t account f o r t h e
wide band of d a t a s c a t t e r . " A comprehensive. l i s t of p o s s i b l e sources of
v a r i a t i o n s i s p r e s e n t e d i n [ l o ] ( s e e Figure 1 0 ) . Due t c t h e amounts of
v a r i a t i o n o c c u r r i n g i n p r a c t i c e , t h e r e s u l t s presented i n [ l o ] show t h a t
a 300 l b l h p v e h i c l e o p e r a t i n g under f a v o r a b l e c o n d i t i o n s can perform a s w e l l
a s a 200 l b l h p v e h i c l e o p e r a t i n g under unfavorable c o n d i t i o n s ( s e e Figure
11, f o r example). The b e s t of t h e group of v e h i c l e s c l o s e t o 300 l b / h p
( i n Fig. 11) and t h e worst of t h e group of v e h i c l e s c l o s e t o 200 l b / h p
a t t a i n e d j u s t over 30 mph i n 1000 f e e t . Other f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e t h a t , when
p a s s i n g a v e h i c l e t r a v e l i n g a t 20 mph on a l e v e l roadway, a worst-case
100 l b / h p v e h i c l e would have t h e same time and d i s t a n c e performance a s t h a t
of a best-case 300 l b / h p v e h i c l e , Although weight-to-horsepower r a t i o is
t h e primary f a c t o r determining v e h i c l e performance, t h e f i n d i n g s of [ l o ]
demonstrate t h a t o t h e r d r i v e r - and v e h i c l e - r e l a t e d f a c t o r s do combine t o
i n f l u e n c e a c c e l e r a t i o n performance t o an e x t e n t e q u i v a l e n t t o a t l e a s t
100 lb/hp.

I n a n NCHRP s t u d y [ 1 1 , 1 2 ] , S t . John and Kobett develop a computational

method t h a t (1) i s based on t h e p h y s i c a l f a c t o r s discussed by Smith [ 7 ]
and ( 2 ) i n c o r p o r a t e s many of t h e i d e a s used by F i r e y and P e t e r s o n [ 2 ] t o
produce a ;rocedure and r e s u l c s t a i l o r e d t o t h e needs of t h e highway
engineer. I n [11,12], t h e a u t h o r s d e s c r i b e a c a l c u l a t i o n procedure t h a t , t o
some e x t e n t , i s designed t o reduce t h e burden imposed by having t o a c q u i r e
a l a r g e amount of d e t a i l e d p a r a m e t r i c d a t a t o d e s c r i b e a v e h i c l e . Never-
t h e l e s s , they s e e f i t t o i n c l u d e i n d i v i d u a l f a c t o r s f o r r o l l i n g r e s i s t a n c e ,
a e r o d y n m i c drag, and d r i v e l i n e l o s s e s ( c h a s s i s f r i c t i o ? ) . They provide
f o r t h e ? o s s i b i l i t v of using n e t engine horsepower v e r s u s RPY c u r v e s , n o t
jus: n e t engine power a t r a t e d speed. The i n f l u e n c e s o f e l e v a t i o n a r e
-,ai;in
- ::-.zo a2counL. -hey do noL r e q u i r e d s t a l i e d :rsnsxLsaion Caca, but
they do "design" a " t y p i c a l " t r a n s m i s s i o n arrangement. The e f f e c t s of engine
i n e r t i a a r e included. The computer program has b u i l t i n r u l e s and parameters
f o r s h i f t i n g g e a r s and t h e time r e q u i r e d t o s h i f t g e a r s . The r e s u l t s from
t h i s model a r e shorn t o produce a c c e l e r a t i o n values t h a t compare favorably
with a c c e l e r a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s provided by t h e Western Highway I n s t i t u t e
[13] -..- t h e Rozd ? . ~ ~ ? a r cLa5ora:ory
c.A; h i c Ezglcxd [14].
 Variable Possibly Causing Scatter of Results -
1. CoaHicient of friction
2. Vwinions in g r d e
3. R o a d rolling r r i s u n c e

8. Atmorphric nriablos .
1. T m p r a t u r e
2. Barometric pressure
3. HumidiN
4. Aldtude
5. Wind veloeiry m d d i r r t i o n

C. Eqinevrirbles
1. Diffmnce in tune
2. Difference in ~ s a n o r i e s
3. Fwt pump and i n j m o r settings.
4. M u i m u m governed Ip..d
5. Frul qurliw
6. Sate o f WI
7. Intmmal friction -
8. Torque c u m
9. Air ~ n t r k era$trlctions (whan was atr cl88nW elemant c h a n ~ d ? )
10. Exheun r r m i d o ~ .
11. * y c l e vr. 2cycle
!
12. Nrcurrlly a r p i r d vr. turboch8rp.d

D. Vrhidenrinionr
1. Transmission
a. type of shift control
b. number of ~ m ) s
c. lubricant
2. Axla ratio, lubricant, friction
3. Tire sire, typo, pressure and temporatura
4. Frontal configuration, shape and arm
5. fr ~ of a bodies
a. truck body
b. s m i or trailer body
6. T a r of cargo
a. liquid
b. general commodities
c. livrnock
7. Grou vehicle weight
8. Internal friction of whnl bearings, seals, rtc.
9. f odficiem of air rrrinance
10. Number of axirr
11. lnrnia of rotating components

E. Driven' skill
1. Proficiency at mifting, maintaining maximum throttle
2 . Camiliarity wirt ~ r h ~ c l a

Figure 10. P o s s i b l e Sources of Scattes: ;13]

Tigure 11. Vehicle Speed Aztained While A c c e l e r a t i n g f r o c 2 Deac? S t o p
on a Level Road S u r f a c e a t a D i s t a n c e o f 1090 Feet [lo].
 I n t h e i r work, S t . John and Kobett discovered t h a t t h e c o a s t i n g
p e r i o d during s h i f t i n g had an i n p o r t a n t i n f l u e n c e t h a t v a r i e d w i t h t h e
l e v e l of grade involved. Tneg a l s o found t h ~ t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r d e t e r -
mining r o l l i n g r e s i s t a n c e and aerodynamic d r a g , a s given i n SAE Recoinmended
P r a c t i c e 5688, were too l a r g e . For g e n e r a l c a l c u l a t i o n s , they recommended
using t h e i r procedure which employed s h i f t d e l a y s and a d j u s t e d c o e f f i -
c i e n t s f o r r o l l i n g r e s i s t a n c e and a e r o d y n m i c drag.

Recently, Abbas and May [ l 5 ] u t i l i z e d t h e model presented i n [ 1 1 , 1 2 ]

t o "develop a c c e l e r a t i o n performance curves f o r f ive-axle t r u c k s along
grades of a g r a d i e n t from -7 t o +7 percent on s t r a i g h t s e c t i o n s of roadway
under f r e e flow conditions." I n t h i s c a s e (Reference [ 1 5 ] ) , d a t a from
v e h i c l e speed measurements, made by CALTWYS, were used t o i n f e r v e h i c l e
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( s p e c i f i c a l l y , weight-to-horsepower ratios). The d a t a
a v a i l a b l e f o r i n f e r r i n g weight-to-horsepower r a t i o s c o n s i s t e d of (1)
a c c e l e r a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s measured on a n e a r l y l e v e l s e c t i o n of roadway
following a weigh s t a t i o n and ( 2 ) s u s t a i n e d speeds on grades of 1.78, 3,
4 , 5 , 6, and 7 p e r c e n t . Using t h e weight-to-horsepower r a t i o s determined
from t h e a v a i l a b l e measuremencs, t h e a u t h o r s were a b l e t o use t h e model
developed i n [11,12] t o e s t i m a t e ( p r e d i c t ) a c c e l e r a t i o n performance f o r t h e
a-.-srage and 12-i/2 p e r c e n t i l e "-;ehiclest' or. g r a i e s fror, -7 t o +7 ? e r c e n t .
Even though t h i s process seems somewhat c i r c u l a r , i t does provide a means
f o r e x t r a p o l a t i n g from aeasured r e s u l t s t o unxeasured c o n d i t i o n s using
physically justifiable rules.

( I f deemed n e c e s s a r y , d i r e c t assessments. of t h e weight-to-horsepower

r a t i o s of v e h i c l e s o p e r a t i n g on t h e grades analyzed cou;d be made t o v e r i f y

- - -. - .2
+ r e ~ z r d:-?s:'-ztLxg t h e ::ei;:.r-rc-k-- L - z 7 > : ~ - z r, - - + 4 -
- . - L -
-.= +- ~
,->
-4
p a r - i c u i a r t r u c k p o p u l a t i o n [lj:, t h e auzhors obtained t h e r e s u l t s d i s -
played i n t h e following t a b l e . he r e s u l t s f o r upgrades ( 2 t o 7 % ) a r e
based on 'matcning s u s t a i n e d s?eed d a t a . Ths r e s u l c s f o r grades from +l
t~ - 7 : z r e based on matching th? a c c e l e r s t i o r perfnm.ance on a n e a r l y l e v e l
roadway. Reasons f o r t 3 e d i f f e r e n c e s b e ~ w e e nweight/horsepower r a t i o s on
1-zrious upgrades and doicmgraces a r e not -lea:. F s a s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s mignt
 Table 1

Entries i n 1 5 / ~ e H
tp
1 Grades % 4

I
~ i v e - ~ x lTrucks
e 2 3 4 i j 1 6 1 7 1 , 0 , a n i - l t o - 7
I
!
Average 230

I
12-l/ 2 P e r c e n t i l e 320
1 L

i c c l u a e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e magnitude of a grade i n f l u e n c e s t h e popu-

l a t i o n of v e h i c l e s t h a t o p e r a t e on t h a t grade. The r e s u l t s do i n d i c a t e
t h a t a 300 l b / h p v e h i c l e would be w e l l below average, bordering on a very
low a c c e l e r a t i o n c a p a b i l i t y f o r t h i s v e h i c l e population.

The approach taken i n [ 1 5 ] employs weight-to-horsepower ratios

d e r i v e d from o b s e r v a t i o n s of v e h i c l e s i n use. However, t h e r e a r e o t h e r
s o u r c e s of information on weight t o horsepower. The Census Bureau, a p a r t
of t h e Y . S . Department of Commerce, has been t a k i n g economic censuses a t
flve-year i n t e r v a l s . Tfie l a t e s t r e s u l t s of t h e s e censuses i n c l u d e the
Truck Inventorv and Use (TIU) survey [I67 f o r t h e pear 1977. (A TIC survey
f z r t h e y e a r 1982 w i l l be conducted during 1483.) The TIL? survey provides
d e t i c n t h e p h y s i c a l and o p e r a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e n a t i o n a l t r u c k
p ~ p u i a t i o n . These d a t a a r e based on a p r o b a b i l i t y sample of t h e p r i v a t e and
c m z e r c i a l t r u c k s r e g i s t e r e d i n each s t a t e i n 1977. Included i n t h e i n f o r -
-...--
- - I-
- - ..- -.:,:.;-
----,-,.-- ;2 La t h e TIL' ;Lr-.-i;: a r e t:-.t -a:-.;- . . :Err:-; . . i n
; r ~ s c :.:-c:;nt
_
--:.-
- - - - - - 12 nonths and t h e h c ~ s 2 p o x e r re:F?.,c of t:?? e n c i n s . I n e d d i z i o n ,

..i-rrr.azicn on t n e use of r a d i a i t i r e s , drag r e d u c t i o n d e 7 ~ i c e s and

i--- , czher
- -
I-ie, c o 3 s e r v a t i o n equipment i s c o n t a i n e l i n :he TIU s u r - ~ e yform ( s e e Figure
;-,- Ssc:i.cn
7
C - Physical C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) . T'ne d a t a deri17ed f r c l the TIT
s-r-e:.- ? r o v i d e s much of t h e i n f o r n a t i o z needed t o e s t i x a t e t h e a c c e l e r a -
t l c z ~ e r f o m a n c ec a p a b i l i t y of t h e t r u c k s i n each s t a t e o r i n t h e e n t i r e
 APPENDIX A. S w a y Form
neYnUMIsUTU~wCI
ultJDB *
n
-
MWC# SIlr u ~ Iv .r -
Per *rcnC O.La. *rr dl.mon
e ta con U. V.L C r b br u r

---
I

3 s-.m *-ma- -#I-.

~~rrmmmm~~ws.rrCnu-
mmnmYImIynruswwruc T h ~ r m ~ r n r c a n ~ r H m . r r
f ~ m m - k l * U t ~ ~ ~ ~
m--warmmu.
TRUCX IMIDrmRY AND USE SURVEY DmnNu
.*

1 I
I(r -
K I T E : C l r -lrn
~ &,I kn m
1 O W M I ? O? r l l l C U
km.lll.(.rrOI*.NIYC)w
h b ar r t F a rdll rlr* e r r 01 *8 d t e l . t k a k d III ~r
kl-CIOOWnUmLO
I

~ L I I I * * I U U C * ( L U U
bnn.Lumut
'Ova
13r-+ratrrn,m.*w
-r .IIl-
j
I
I
'" - m(xt#m---w~-wm,.wn
m t g ~ w m - ~ - m ~ a m ~ * r ( ~ )
8 r G L n . r u c I M rt-r*ww..rmmdn
uQI*lcrm
~ ~ - w w a n a o r n * r u 840Lgl..rCd~
LLI~MYIIIYI~ rOkPvlUl-r~k.rc.lr,ryu.~.lwuro

-
tgCvartm a ~ t ~ w r a r a r r m u u n * ~ . c .
13l'mWd.l.r
a ~ L l l r m c u . m u r 5 n & v r * , ~ - w
1 3 U k e 1 r
, -0-Im-m
! v u ~ ~ ? . ~ ~ w L . . . L ( R ~ ~ L I ~
I mOkn.rcprul(wa~-
LmmYmLD.u-1- I ~ ~ ~ Q ~ u ~ w I w ~ ~ ~ . I Q ) ~ ~ . ~ Y I T ~ s I L
r P . * l n U a a n a n m r ~ m ~ w l l r a n f ~ r a h r r r - e r r w
1Zva ~ 1 0 ~ r U W l ~ . * I * a m . ~ ~ . . ( u
110 C ~ ~ ~ I ( U ~ Y U I I Y I I ~ I r
~ ~tnmwum.rero
I=&#
, l a O ~ . u -
LIIIWIY~WW~~~ mOLMOm.rrr~ayl.*uww-*rum
~Srnm~enw nnTt-cll..1*"1111)vnr~~wrw1 aw.mtcwmnl
r ~ V n m h w i w ~ ~ l l l L l l ~ Q b m m M 8 . w m
1*0*uullr
k 4 - U U I Q U L m m ~ ~ D h l s . ~ m ~ * ~ ~ m a a ~ " w m y . r u l l r " r c r
a..nnw- n Q h * r c ~ . - ~ w m -,r4 h u q ~ q a . ~
31m- ~n wr . u a m , a ~ rmu-I

o--~ C V ~ YD.
c~rnwe S E

F i g u r e 1.2. TI: 3ara Shest

 h

k c l . e - m l l l n ~ r r ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ m ~s Cn -uW- Yb C4 ~~O ( U I C ~ ~ ~ C S=- k

)- 11 bru O P MUID.-
~.L@rnI*..r*m*.R1?
on-nnunurr o ~ m o r
C p
~ .r ~ - m ~ ~ ~ l u c n m m ~ ~ - t r .
IIJ
YInL.)ewIY...
COIIIU AALU -
-
- ,--
m t z r H ~ w v -1 WLC
I ~ - I I : ~ V I ~ ~ I U I ~ I I ~ V ~ ~ ~~ l~) r
( t~z I, b~~m-,*l
YYIIw-IuIL~*.(.)~. .III-,.DLt.IL
Irn rn,lruMU 81 Y W ~ -t r 0 I*-.
L.lw,.m---1m
*-'.I*CIR IIY*Y,m- ~ I , . . L . m m C C L - ~ - - ~ I * . L1w-
rw,r.rrluaohu,"Hm"-a 111
I s L n l ~ l m h n . ~ ~ . ~ ~ s ~ t ~81' ~

-
~.Umuu~u*Iv~
-onm-yw
-mLU
-
m L ULC A W O D I U ? w TUUI I R ~

Wl11 Lo I l l m.c* y

.
u
. lu .I m.U ..*I.
II.IIWm..IIIIL
-,.I

UfOllL YW
b...III)WYUUmYI
ea*nYmewaauI Ln b . . U l l ~ # u U ~ ,
Irt lo*-
-*-. ,-a1
,_-
j m x l 6 ~ ~ l a r aIF

-
1-4 C. d l
-----------------------------*.
p.w)VYI.rr*.l ,=
mcu *en mum
l.nm.mllmem
mwut.Imu '2
...Utll*l ....
4 . a ~ l t ~ r r * u U - - ~ ~ -

-
1 : u . u * ~ r r 2zL.w
~

--
mau-UYIIWI
rr (1
*Cr*
I 5 -1
e us
aC.wnrr
*nrw
ngcmwsm~-.urr p t 1 O ~ W - l ~ ,-,----,,.---
, -
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,
lE
,
st-, rrr.
N-40) I
*S
I -1' *=L=,*zL-
UH-CO~
Tau
-8

db-"*Uu-
Lhmmwlm8uyuw-- rCih--m 1n=16w*~srma
I
,*'I7~r Y 1.l a-urn m

,-. T
'- W me'
-- k m &I
nsmr*Ia~tr,ffiI
d mvve*,
(_._

IWCY~NSIMII

sf_',&OXmUSI m,>lmla~~
0,- s ~ i;.cma
f r%:l~~:ox
01:1owito14om Io=wml~comc
r z 1ra1181bm0 112wmlmmm
n:
r z IYUiuiSW
l6~lull.m 12: wmlblmmo
Il~lOOmlulX~
-
mTfm!u~rW 14=1sW1edm

ir WK rmo
171meLyl
- uxr or uwre
r r r X l 0 * 6 m Wurlmrrrr0l~lrm
I" IU. .w*
 The T I C d a t a have been acquired and s t o r e d i n com?uter f i l e s [ l 7 ] ,
thereby nahing i t p r a c t i c a l t o examine t h e s e d a t a f o r over 96,000 t r u c k s .
Exao?le r e s u l t s f o r t h e horsepower-to-weight r a t i o (hp/-+:t) a c r o s s weight
c l a s s e s f o r a l l t r u c k s i n d i c a t e t h a t heavy t r u c k s have ~ u c hlower hp/wt
r a t i o s than s m a l l v e h i c l e s ( s e e Figure 13).* For v e h i c l e s i n the 60 t o 80
thousand pound range, t h e average horsepower i s 282 w i t h a n estimated
standard d e v i a t i o n of 51 hp. Based on t h e s e r e s u l t s , the average weight-
to-horse?over r a t i o f o r heavy t r u c k s i s 248 l b s / h p and, f o r v e h i c l e s t h a t
a r e one s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n l e s s powerful t h a n average, :he wt/hp r a t i o i s
303 l b s / h p .

These r e s u l t s from t h e TIU survey compare reasonably w e l l w i t h t h e

f i n d i n g s of [15] ( s e e Table 1 presented previously)-perticularly the
r e s u l t s of [15] t h a t were obtained from a c c e l e r a t i o n performance on t h e l e v e l .
The e n t r i e s i n Table 1 t h a t were d e r i v e d from s u s t a i n e d speed information cn
upgrades o f from 2 t o 7% appear t o i n d i c a t e very low l e v e l s of wt/hp.
Perhaps, i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o determine whether a v e h i c l e has reached sus-
t a i n e d speed, o r , p o s s i b l y , t h e r e happened t o be a number of unloaded
v e h i c l e s o p e r a t i n g on t h e s e g r a d e s , thereby i n f l u e n c i n g t h e average r e s u l t s .
I n any e v e n t , both of t h e s e d a t a s o u r c e s [ l 5 and 161 i n d i c a t e t h a t roadway
i s s i g n s 3aaeC on a 300 lb/hp heavy t r u c k would be consi,-,rative comparec LO

t h e performance of an average heavy truck.

. C u r r e n t l y , t h e AASHTO "Blue ~ o o k , "A P o l i c y on Geometric Desig? of

Xural Xi@waps, i s being r e v i s e d and review d r a f t s of t h e new book have
been assembled ( s e e Reference [18]) . With r e s p e c t t o a c c e l e r a t i o n perf or-
nance, the work of Hayhoe and Grundmann [19] i s used i n [ l a ] t o update t h e
. . . .-
r . ~- fz pi
, - - ..
..-.-. - -
$ .------c.v
c L [ I ] . 12 [LQ] ~ ~ ~ ~ - . ' , i ; : . : - . - e f p r 2 r2-y.-
--...-,
~ ~ - y - . z s

=e~!:a:F-:5 ?.cavy truzk are developed. These cxrves a r e 5ased on nuneri~al

-
:aieu-atlc>s f o r a 200 lb/hp v e h i c l e e n t e r i n g v a r i 3 u s 1 2 v e l s of ~ r a a ezt
j 5 r?h. T5e c a l c u l a t i o n s performed i n [19 j employ r e p r e s e n t a t i v e parametric
..-
. = 1 ~ 2 2 c2s:riSi3g a t y p i c a l v e h i c l e t o compute perforsz:ce curves. .An

*Eorsepower-to-weight r a t i o i s presented i n Figure 1 3 because horse-

?c:;cr i s a continuous q u a n t i t y but maximum gross weight (during t h e l a s t
1 2 ~ o c t ? . ~i s) recorded i n c e r t a i n ranges r a t h l r t k a n ~ : ~ ~ i n u o u s( sl s: e~ Fig.
. ?
i c e - 1- - Gross ideight). Also, hp/wt i s o i r e c z l y t r o p o r t i o n a l t o
acce1eri:Lon ?erfornance r a t h e r than i n v e r s e l y ?ro?ortl:nal a s wt/hp i s .
Figure 1 3 . Hp/Wt across w e i g h t c l a s s e s f o r a l l t r u c k s -
i n i t i a l speed of 55 mph i s used because c u r r e n t t r u c k s t y p i c a l l y achieve
t h i s speed on l e v e l grades. The choice of a 300 l b / h p v e h i c l e i s based
on (1) examining t h e t r e n d of wt/hp e s t i x a t e s ( s e e Figure 14) and ( 2 )
p r i v a t e comnunications w i t h a n engine manufacturer and a l a r g e t r u c k i n g
organization. Given t h a t t h e s t a t e of t h e a r t i n p r e d i c t i n g a c c e l e r a t i o n
performance has advanced t o t h e p o i n t where a c c u r a t e p r e d i c t i o n s can be
r e l i a b l y nade, t h e procedures used i n [ 1 9 ] shouLd produce s a t i s f a c t o r y
r e s u l t s , i f s u i t a b l e and a p p r o p r i a t e parametric v a l u e s a r e used i n the
calculations.

The average r e s u l t s from t h e TIU survey [16] have been superimposed

i n F i g u r e 14 by t a k i n g t h e i n v e r s e of the hp/wt r a t i o curve presented i n
Figure i3. C l e a r l y , a l l t h e curves p r e s e n t e c i n Figure 1 4 i n d i c a c e t h e
continued t r e n d towards lower wt/hp r a t i o s , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r heavy
vehicles.

Based on t h i s review of t h e s t a t e of the a r t , t h e following f a c t o r s

have an important i n f l u e n c e on t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n perfornance of heavy
trucks :

h?/wt , n e t horsepower-to-weigh: ratio

.., ,
T-
g r o s s weight
e q u i v a l e n t weight i n c l u d i n g r o t a t i n g components
we,
h, elevation

r o l l i n g r e s i s t a n c e of t h e t i r e s
Fr
aerod5namic drag
Fa '
F, grade
.- d r i v e l i n e e f f i ~ i e n c y( c 5 a s s i s f r : c t i c n factor)

&.
t h e s h i f t i n g time of t k s d r i v e r
Ls'
and Crpm, t h e engine speed change r e s u l t i n 3 f r o n s h i f t i n g from
one gear t o a n o t h e r

I n a d d i t i o n , t h e torque-speed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the engine ( t o r q u e r i s e ) ,

t h e r a d i u s of t h e . t i r e s , and t h e nmber of gears and t h e i r r a t i o s a r e
L,,,,UucL
-*-7..2-2 :-&
he d e t a i l 4 c z l c u l ? t i ? z s . -.c zzst ~ ' 7 . 2x s d s cf t h e ?,Lg'nwsy
engineer, t h e above information i s combined t o produce a c c e l e r a t i o n v e r s u s
v e l o c i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r design v e h i c l e s o p e r a t i n g on v a r i o u s magnitudes
of grade. The a c c e l e r a t i o n v e r s u s v e l o c i t y information i s used t o compute
(through numerical i n t e g r a t i o n ) speed-distance graphs t h a t t h e highway
engineer can r e a d i l y employ i n developing o r e v a l u a t i n g t h e geometric design
of c?- and downgrade s e c t i o n s of roadway.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
(References f o r t h e main body a r e given on page 55)

Huff, T.S. and S c r i v n e r , F.H. " S i m p l i f i e d Climbing-Lane 3 e s i z n

and 3oad-Tes t Results." Highway Research Board Bulleti:!
-
104, 1953.

F i r e y , J. C. and P e t e r s o n , E.W. " ~ nAnalysis of Speed Changes f o r

Large T r a n s p o r t Trucks." Highwa:: Research 3oard S t l l l e t i n 334,
1962.

.XSHO. "-4 ? o l i c y on Geometric Design of Xural :iigh?days." 1953.

i n t e r n a t i o n a l Harvester .
"TL4PE" and "TRLXSIII. " S i m u l a t i o n
P r o g r a m . Truck Engineering Group, F o r t Sv'ayne, I n d i a n a .

D e t r o i t D i e s e l X l l i son. ".Ulison Transmissions Performance

F o n d a s , Conversions, Tables, Graphs, 3ef i n i t i o n s . "
General Motors Corporation, I n d i a n a p o l i s , Indiana.

Cuxnnins Zngine Company. "Vehicle X i s s i o n S i n u l a t i o n . " Columbus,

Indiana.

Smith, G.L. "Commercial V e h i c l e P e r f o m a n c e and Fuel Economy. 11

SAE Paper No. 700194, SP-355, Buckendale L e c t u r e , 1970.

.
Fancher , P , e t a l . "Retarders f o r Heavy V e h i c l e s : Evaluation or'
Performance C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and iri-Service Costs. I' Vol. I ,
Technical Rept., HSRI, Univ. of Xichigan, C o n t r a c t Yo. 30T-
HS-9-02239, February 1981.

Klokkenga, D.A. " S e l e c t i n g Powertrain Components f o r Heavy-Duty

Trucks." SXE Paper No. 760830, November 1976.

Hutton, T. D. " ~ c c e l e r a t i o nPerformance of Highway D i e s e l Trucks. "

SAE Paper No. 700664, August 1970.

S t . Jonn, X.D. and Kobett, D.R. "Grade E f f e c t s on T r a f f i c Flow

S t a b i i i t y and Capacity." I n t e r i m Report, NCLV P r o j e c t 3-19,
December 1972.

S t . John, X.D. and K o b e t t , D.R. "Grade E f f e c t s on T r a f f i c Flow

S t a b i l i t y and Capacity." T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research Board,
X C W Report 185, 1978.

Western R i g b a y I n s t i t u t e . "Horsepower C o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r Trucks

and Truck Combinations, 1969 A c c e l e r a t i o n Tests." Suppie-
n e n t '.lo. 1, Research Committee Rept. !lo. 2 , September 1370.
 .
E v e r a l l , P .F " S o c i a l B e n e f i t s f rcln Xininum Power-Weight 3 a t i o s
f a r Sooas 72iis1zs." 3oad 32sear:h Laboratory 3s?t. LZ 291,
> f i n i s t r y of T r a n s p o r t , Englaad, 1969.

Xbbas, X.S. and Xay, X.3. 11 A c c e l e r a t i o n P e r f o m a n c e C a p a b i l i t y of

Tive-.Axle Trucks. 11 I n s t . of T r a r s . S t u d i e s , Univ. of
.
C a l i f o r n i a , Xep t No. UC3-ITS-32-2, Xarch 1982.

Bureau of Census. "Truck Inveritor? and Use Survey." 1977' Cecsus

o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , U.S. Dept, of C o m e r c e , Issued J u a e 1979.

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research I n s t i t u t a {JSRI). "Coaebook,Csnsus or'

. ..
>ans?ortaticp., 197' T. c 1-1.- -.- ~c+ -,- -i - a y,r and ,s 2 S UT;E:I. I f
IT

L n i v e r s i t y of Hichigan, 1980.

"A P o l i c y on Geometric Design of Hi~hwaysand S t r e e t s . " X C W

P r o j e c t 20-7, Task A, Review g r a f t 2.4, March 1981.

Hayhoe, G.F. and Grundmann, J.G. "Review of V e h i c l e Weight/

Jorse?ower R a t i o s as Related t o Passing Lane Design C r i r e r i a . 11
F i n a l Rep t, , Y B R 2 P r o j e c t 20-7, Task 1 0 , Pennsylvania
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I n s t i t u t e , Re?t. PTf 7806, October 1978.

Glennon, J.C. "An E v a l u a t i o n of Design C r i t e r i a f o r Operating

Trucks S a f e l y on Grades." Highwav Research Record 312 ,
1970.